In both favorable and adverse economic conditions, organizations need visibility into their businesses. By enabling the creation, structuring and analysis of multiple aspects of enterprise architecture (EA), EA tools go far in fulfilling this need. EA tools have continued to attract considerable interest and benefit from enhanced functionality. This market also continues to be affected by merger and acquisition activity with the expected entrance of another large software vendor, Software AG.

Although the Magic Quadrant is a view of the market as a whole, the best EA tool for a given organization might well be outside of the Leaders quadrant. Often, niche problems require niche solutions. When selecting an EA tool, organizations should consider a range of criteria and should weight these according to their current and future needs. Given that there is still much economic uncertainty, organizations should consider the viability of their preferred vendors.

Despite the recent challenging economic climate, the adoption of EA tools has continued to increase significantly, with most of the vendors reporting revenue growth of greater than 20% in 2008, as well as growth throughout 2009. The richness of the tool capabilities continued to increase, particularly in those related to the management of EA and the exchange of information with other tools. In addition, merger and acquisition activity has also continued, with Software AG scheduled to complete its acquisition of IDS Scheer later in 2009.

Many of the tools in this market also compete in the business process analysis (BPA) market and in other modeling markets. While we do not insist that an EA tool have the ability to do modeling, most do because analytical techniques enabled through modeling closely match the analytical needs of enterprise architects. Additionally, these tools are supporting a range of EA activities beyond just modeling (such as task management, governance, communication and collaboration), all held in a common repository. Currently, this provides value to mature clients in this market, but it could lead to functional sprawl and bloated offerings in the future.

Furthermore, "disruptive innovators" (such as low-end offerings and open source) are a consideration — especially as the current technology providers increase their functionality. Recently, open-source offerings for EA support emerged. While it is too early to assess their adoption and success in this market, they must be put on the radar screen. Low-end or no-cost offerings with minimal functionality often supplant high-end comprehensive offerings over time. This is referred to as "the innovator's dilemma."

It's not just the software but how that software will fit into the existing and future ecosystem of the enterprise that matters.

Enterprise architects must bring together information on a variety of subjects, including applications, data (structured and unstructured), technology of various kinds, interfaces, business processes and organization structures, and they must relate this content to the business strategy and to various environmental trends. The architects must understand and represent the information as well as the relationships between the information to communicate with their stakeholders.

Many enterprises start off using drawing tools, spreadsheets and content management tools to document and share their EA. Although this can be useful initially, ensuring the consistency of these documents becomes extremely difficult once artifacts appear in multiple places. For example, representations of an application might appear on a diagram depicting a server, a diagram depicting a business process, and a diagram depicting the application's interfaces — all on different content management systems, spreadsheets or diagrams. Changes to the application might require updates in all locations, introducing additional complexity and opportunities for inconsistency and inaccuracy.

The EA tool market consists of vendors that offer software products to capture, store, structure, analyze and present information related to EA. The information stored in an EA tool must allow for multiple architectural viewpoints, including: business, information, technology and solutions. Vendors usually offer related support, training, consulting and maintenance.

The minimum requirements of an EA tool are:

• The ability to create or import models and artifacts
• The ability to present repository information to support myriad stakeholder needs, including displaying it graphically and textually, as well as providing it in executable forms (such as Business Process Modeling Notation [BPMN]/Business Process Execution Language [BPEL], entity-relationship diagram [ERD]/Data Definition Language [DDL] and Unified Modeling Language [UML])
• A robust yet flexible repository and metamodel(s) that support often-changing relationships between objects within and between myriad viewpoints or architectures, as well as capturing temporal relationships and changes
• Requisite administrative capabilities to meet diverse needs (such as security, audit/control, configuration and versioning)
• In the vendor descriptions in this Magic Quadrant, we highlight several strengths and cautions for each vendor. We have not attempted to mention all strengths and cautions for each vendor. Rather, the purpose of the comments is to provide guidance on the most salient, distinguishing points for each vendor.

To be included in this Magic Quadrant, a vendor must have a product (or integrated set of products) that meets the minimum requirements for an EA tool as we have described. Each vendor must have derived at least $5 million in license and maintenance revenue during the previous reporting year from products that are used for EA.

There are no new vendors in this year's EA Tool Magic Quadrant.

In comparison with the 2008 Magic Quadrant, Adaptive, Allen Systems Group (ASG) and BiZZdesign do not appear on this year's Magic Quadrant because they did not demonstrate meeting the aforementioned inclusion criteria.

Ultimately, technology providers are judged on their ability and success in capitalizing on their vision. Vendors are evaluated on their Ability to Execute — to compete effectively, positively impacting revenue and delivering solutions to clients that create positive win-win relationships. Ability to Execute is evaluated through the following weighted criteria (see Table 1 for weightings):

• Product/Service: This includes the core products/services offered by the vendors that compete in this market. We look primarily at five aspects of the vendor's EA product suite:
  • The ability to create information within the tool or import information from relevant sources, such as design tools of various kinds, IT management tools and packaged applications, and the ability to export information from the tool to facilitate stakeholder use
  • Ways to structure information meaningfully through the tool's architecture, including its metamodel capabilities, support for architecture frameworks and reference models
  • Information presentation, including variety, ease of use and publishing capabilities
  • Analytical capabilities related to EA, including gap analysis, impact analysis and the ability to apply business intelligence analysis to repository information
  • Tool administration, including management of architecture configurations, security and features to support the management of architecture, such as tracking the use of future state architecture principles and models, workflow, and collaboration
• Overall Viability: An assessment of the vendor's financial health, the strength of its customer base and its presence in the market; for the larger vendors, we also evaluated the relevant business unit and the likelihood that the vendor will continue to invest in and sell the product. This specifically refers to IBM, Sybase and IDS Scheer/Software AG.
• Sales Execution/Pricing: The overall effectiveness of the sales channels as well as the product pricing, including the cost of training and consulting.
• Market Responsiveness and Track Record: Ability to respond to changes in the market as customer needs evolve and market dynamics change, recognizing the vendor's history of responsiveness.
• Marketing Execution: The effectiveness of programs communicating the organization's message to the market to increase awareness of its products and establish a positive identification with the product or brand and organization among buyers.
• Customer Experience: The customer's experience with the vendor and its products.
• Operations: The organization's ability to meet its goals and commitments, including the vendor's technical support, training and consulting operations.

Vendors are evaluated on their ability to articulate logical statements about current and future market direction, innovation, customer needs and competitive forces, and how consistently they map their strategies and plans to their stated vision — as well as the practicality of their vision. Ultimately, vendors are rated on their understanding of market forces and their plans to exploit the market. Following are the weighted Completeness of Vision criteria (see Table 2 for weights):

• Market Understanding: Ability to understand and accurately forecast buyers' needs in the EA environment, and to translate these needs into products and services.
• Marketing Strategy: A clear, differentiated set of messages communicated consistently throughout the organization and externalized through the website, advertising, customer programs and positioning statements, consistent with the market understanding.
• Sales Strategy: The strategy that uses the appropriate network of direct and indirect sales channels, coupled with marketing, service and communication affiliates that extend the scope and depth of market reach for selling products and services.
• Offering (Product) Strategy: A vendor's approach to product development and delivery that emphasizes differentiation, functionality, methodology and features as they map to users' requirements.
• Business Model: The soundness and logic of a vendor's underlying business proposition.
• Vertical/Industry Strategy: The vendor's strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of individual industries.
• Innovation: Direct, related, complementary and synergistic allocation of resources, expertise or capital for investment, consolidation, defensive or pre-emptive purposes.
• Geographic Strategy: The vendor's strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of geographies outside its "home" region directly, or through partners, channels and subsidiaries, as appropriate for that geography and market.

Leaders have a broad range of capabilities to support EA, combined with the ability to deliver these capabilities to a diverse group of stakeholders. While each of the six leaders has different strengths, they all provide good capabilities to assist EA's mission to translate business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change. In addition, they have a clear vision of where EA is going and maturing.

The single challenger has good functionality but has not built a significant presence in this market.

This year, no vendors surfaced in the Visionaries quadrant.

Vendors in the Niche Players quadrant tend to have strengths in numerous aspects of EA, but may be relatively deficient in functional breadth, global presence, industry breadth or simply market focus. However, they may also have expertise in a particular niche market, which actually makes them the vendors of choice for that market.

• Despite difficult global economic conditions, in 2008, alfabet made significant financial progress, reportedly increasing revenue by 80% and becoming profitable. These are positive indicators for current and prospective customers, because financial strength is a crucial element of continuing viability.
• One of alfabet planningIT's strengths is its ability to track and manage the rollout of future-state architecture. Attractive functions include the ability to set up automated alerts for the use of unapproved design elements in projects and the ability to automatically notify stakeholders of changes to architecture standards.
• Alfabet's planningIT is designed for integrated IT planning and includes functional breadth beyond traditional EA, supporting a continuum of IT planning and control functions and processes.
• Alfabet's planningIT contains a rich metamodel "out of the box." This provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects and then to track its use by projects.
• PlanningIT can be acquired through a traditional, perpetual license; through subscription; through a hosting model; or through metered licensing based on function calls per user. This provides considerable flexibility to meet a wide range of needs.

• Having successfully created a presence in North America, alfabet now needs to scale up its operations to continue this expansion. To do this, it must strengthen its sales and support organization. This transition has proven difficult for many vendors. However, based on the maturity that it has continued to show in building its North American operation, we believe that alfabet can successfully negotiate this next phase.
• While planningIT supports the drawing of a range of diagrams natively and through Visio, alfabet is one of the vendors in this market that does not participate in related modeling markets. Organizations that want extensive modeling capabilities native to their EA tool, as opposed to integrated with other tools (e.g., application life cycle management [ALM] for UML), should consider alternatives.

• Although it has benefits across a wide range of vertical industries, Casewise offers focused frameworks and models for several industries, including telecommunications, utilities, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, which will suit organizations wanting to leverage these to kick-start their work.
• Casewise contains a rich metamodel out of the box, with coverage of standard architecture viewpoints (business, information, technology and solution). This provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects.
• Having roots in modeling, Casewise provides good modeling and simulation capabilities. Casewise provides diverse methods of modeling, including Visio and Web-based modeling, which may appeal to large organizations requiring collaboration among diverse stakeholders.

• Although it provides an attractive EA tool, Casewise has not displayed leadership in specific areas of this market during the evaluation period. Changes and additions to the management team are purporting to address this.
• According to customer reports, Casewise's portal has not had a high level of uptake due to difficulties with the early release. While Casewise claims to have addressed this, organizations that plan to use the portal should emphasize this in their proof-of-concept project prior to finalizing their purchase.

• IBM's System Architect product suite pioneered EA when it was developed by Popkin Software. The product has established a substantial presence and "mind share" in this market. This is illustrated by the fact that the majority of organizations evaluating EA tools that consult Gartner for advice include System Architect on their shortlists. System Architect is a good choice for organizations that are looking for a well-established and proven tool.
• IBM completed its acquisition of Telelogic in 2008. With IBM's extensive worldwide presence and effective services organization, this deal will have a major impact on the market. Although the acquisition is still in its very early days, discussions with IBM indicate that it understands the important role that EA plays in aligning business and IT. In particular, we believe that its plan to leverage the EA expertise in IBM Global Business Services will provide it with valuable guidance. It is also emphasizing the importance of making EA actionable, and plans to build bridges between System Architect and other IBM and some third-party products to implement this. We believe that this acquisition makes System Architect a particularly attractive choice for organizations that extensively deploy IBM software.
• System Architect has a rich set of functions to support EA. Recent enhancements include the ability to have simplified views of the repository to facilitate reporting and analysis, the ability to view how a model changes through various future states and the ability to provide an updatable browser interface to the live repository. Although in many cases System Architect has not been the first tool to make these capabilities available, the development team had been very adept in prioritizing enhancements to meet the needs of this market.
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, System Architect participates in several modeling markets, including BPA. This will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
• IBM's stated direction toward Jazz shows promise with regard to enabling enterprise architects to work across organizational boundaries and address business webs and network markets.

• System Architect has moved from one developer-centric organization (Telelogic) to another (IBM's Rational Software Group). In our opinion, this poses a risk of the tool's evolution being skewed toward development concerns and away from business concerns by a disproportionately high percentage of customers who are largely application developers. In addition to these stakeholders, an EA tool must address the needs of stakeholders wanting different capabilities and viewpoints. IBM claims to be addressing the business concerns and expects much improvement in the next release.
• Despite its extensive functionality for enterprise architects, two aspects of System Architect make it unduly complex. The first aspect is the way in which relationships are represented in the repository, which makes nonstandard reports and navigation of relationships more difficult than they need to be. IBM has acknowledged this issue and has scheduled "representational consistency" and "enhanced repository for external reports" capabilities for June 2010 to address this. Although System Architect has a number of capabilities that shield the user, more-sophisticated users will encounter this issue. The second source of complexity is customization, which was addressed in version 11.3 and is graphical; however we have yet to receive data points proving its absolute resolution as an issue. Organizations considering any sophisticated use of System Architect must commit and train resources to deal with this complexity and to shield the rest of the EA team from it.

• Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) is well-known for its long-standing leadership in the BPA market and its rich modeling and analysis capabilities. This makes it well-suited for organizations that want to use the same tool for EA and BPA and that want a repository with modeling capabilities.
• ARIS has the ability to exchange information with a range of products, including several development tools, as well as some integration middleware. ARIS also has the ability to exchange packaged application information with SAP's Solution Manager and SAP's Enterprise Service Repository, as well as the ability to import information from Oracle's Fusion middleware. This makes it attractive for organizations in which these vendors' applications play an important role.
• IDS Scheer's ARIS product contains a rich metamodel, with broad EA content included, out of the box. This provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects.

• At the time of writing, IDS Scheer is being acquired by Software AG. Because Software AG already holds more than 50% of the outstanding IDS Scheer shares, the transaction is likely to complete in 2009. Current EA ARIS users should continue with their current plans. However, they and prospective purchasers of ARIS for EA use should monitor Software AG's postacquisition integration and plans for ARIS.
• In 2008, IDS Scheer derived 41% of its ARIS revenue from services. Although most users derive significant value from services related to the initial configuration, as well as training and knowledge transfer, organizations must ensure that proposals meet their needs.

• Mega has the ability to exchange information with a range of products, including modeling and development tools, as well as the ability to export to a number of integration middleware suites. This benefits organizations that want to automatically incorporate this information into their repositories.
• In addition to competing in the EA tool market, Mega participates in several other related markets, including the BPA; governance, risk and compliance (GRC); and application analysis and design markets. This is a good solution for organizations desiring a single integrated tool to provide for multiple stakeholder needs beyond EA.
• With a full EA suite of products, Mega provides a well-balanced EA tool (balance being defined as equal weighting against the criteria used for this Magic Quadrant).
• The Mega Modeling Suite contains a rich metamodel out of the box, with coverage of business, information, technology and solution architecture viewpoints. This provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects.

• Like many vendors in this market, Mega is a relatively small company. It is based in Paris, with sales offices in a number of other western European countries. Outside of Europe, it has a growing presence in North America as well as subsidiaries in Japan and Mexico. Elsewhere, it is represented by resellers. Organizations wanting a direct vendor presence in other geographies may prefer a vendor with wider presence.
• While Mega is profitable and debt-free, its 2008 revenue did not grow as rapidly as a number of other vendors in this market, reflecting the more diversified use of Mega's products. The entrance of two large software vendors into this market during the past 18 months raises the question of whether others will do the same; Mega would be an attractive acquisition target. Buyers should negotiate contract conditions that bind potential successor companies to protect them against this possibility.

• Metastorm ProVision has a long-standing reputation for ease of use relative to others in this market. Organizations desiring large deployments with average users should consider the importance of usability.
• Although it has benefits across a wide range of vertical industries, Metastorm's ProVision offers frameworks and models for several industries, including telecommunications, insurance, defense and supply chain management. These can provide a useful starting point for EA work and will be attractive to many organizations in these industries.
• In addition to competing in the EA tool market, Metastorm ProVision participates in several modeling markets, including BPA. This will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
• During the past year, Metastorm has made significant enhancements to ProVision's EA capabilities through the EA Management Product Pack. These include the introduction of building blocks to represent reusable elements of solutions, improved metamodel support for technology architecture and support for EA governance workflows (including the management of waivers).

• In 2007 and 2008, Metastorm derived significant EA revenue from services. Although most end-user clients derive significant value from services related to the initial configuration of an EA tool, organizations must ensure that proposals meet their needs. Also, favorable usability reports lessen the severity of this caution, suggesting high service revenue does not relate to complexity of the tool.

• In addition to competing in the EA tool market, QualiWare participates in several related markets, including BPA and GRC. This, coupled with its approach to engaging employees throughout the enterprise, will appeal to organizations wanting a single modeling and repository tool with an eye on collaborative reuse.
• QualiWare products contain a rich metamodel out of the box, with coverage of business, information, technology and solution architecture viewpoints. This provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects.

• Information obtained during reference checks suggests a steeper-than-average learning curve for the product. QualiWare states this is addressed through a new user interface (UI), role-based access and configuration, and an enhanced help system. Organizations seeking ease of use should validate the effectiveness of these recent enhancements or consider alternatives.
• QualiWare has enjoyed considerable success in its Scandinavian base and has successfully established a presence in North America. However, with estimated revenue from EA between $5 million and $25 million, QualiWare is still a relatively small, private company that earns most of its revenue in Europe. In our opinion, this lack of scale results in vulnerability to a takeover. Buyers should negotiate contract conditions that bind successor companies to protect them against this possibility.

• From a product functionally perspective, Salamander is a strong contender — particularly in supporting business decision making.
• Although Salamander has customers across a range of industries, it has considerable focus on EA support in "critical and national infrastructure," which includes the military and intelligence communities, and it has had considerable success with this constituency. It also has a team dedicated to the natural resources sector. For these reasons, Salamander is an attractive choice in these industries.
• Salamander's variants allow the representation of different architecture configurations. Variants are powerful, because they can be structured as a tree, showing divergences from a common heritage. Business performance can be attached to variants to improve business decision making. The differences between variants can also be displayed graphically. This is particularly useful in a federated organization, with business units sharing some aspects of the architecture and being independent in other aspects of the architecture.

• Salamander does not have a wide geographic presence, with customers primarily located in the U.K. and other western European countries. Although the Internet and electronic communications have reduced the impact of distance, organizations outside Salamander's home base should clarify ongoing support arrangements. Additionally, Salamander addresses this caution via partnerships with "major global system integrators."
• With estimated revenue from EA between $5 million and $25 million, Salamander is growing rapidly, although it is still a relatively small, private company. In our opinion, this lack of scale results in susceptibility to an acquisition. Buyers should negotiate contract conditions that bind successor companies to protect them against this possibility.

• In addition to competing in the EA tool market, Sybase's PowerDesigner participates in several modeling markets, including database design, in which it has a 35% market share. This will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities — particularly those with a strong focus on information architecture.
• Although we get glowing reports about the support provided by many of the small vendors in this market, retaining high satisfaction levels on a much larger scale is very challenging. However, the Sybase customers we've spoken to have been very happy with the support services that they have experienced and have rated it highly. This attention to customers positions Sybase well in its plans to provide more-extensive EA capabilities and will appeal to organizations that value excellent support.
• On a grander scale, Sybase, initially a database management provider, is focused on enterprise mobility. PowerDesigner is expected to be a critical component to this vision. If mobility is a critical component of your strategy, consider PowerDesigner.

• PowerDesigner lacks some features that assist with the management of architecture activities (such as workflow management). Sybase claims to be addressing this in its upcoming release.
• Sybase's marketing gives minimal visibility into the use of PowerDesigner for EA. Effective marketing often correlates to longer-term product viability.

• During the past six years, Troux Technologies has established itself as a major vendor in the EA tool market. A key contributor to this success is the company's unwavering focus on strategic IT planning, of which EA is a major element. Troux has been able to effectively articulate this vision to appeal to enterprise architects. It has also been able to translate this vision into innovative product capabilities and to bring these to market. Troux is a good choice for organizations seeking sophisticated support for their EA activity.
• Troux recently introduced two innovations — Troux Alignment and Troux Accelerators. Troux Alignment supports business architecture and context. Troux Accelerators leverage maturity models to support rapid time-boxed iterative transformation.
• Troux has the ability to provide advanced architecture configuration management capabilities through the Troux Initiatives product, which enables a range of programs to be described, with each program permitted multiple future options that can be explored. This will be attractive to federated organizations.
• Troux Collection provides starter sets for importing information from a range of sources that include runtime environments, such as middleware and server directories. However, the real value of Troux Collection is that it allows rules to be configured to resolve conflicting information from multiple sources. Troux is also leveraging this capability to form tighter integration to strategic partners (for example, configuration management databases [CMDBs] and program and portfolio management [PPM]). This is particularly useful for organizations that want to regularly refresh the current-state-architecture information in the repository from the actual runtime environment.
• A range of capabilities foster EA collaboration and governance. These include the ability to remind users of their obligations to refresh information in the repository. There is also the ability for architecture stakeholders to make journal entries or blog posts about information within the repository. This will suit those organizations that require management rigor in their EA processes, as well as fostering collaboration between architecture contributors.

• Despite its leadership in the EA tool market, and that it reported having adequate cash from investors and an estimated EA revenue sufficient to meet the entrance criteria (greater than $5 million), Troux has only recently reported profitability. Combined with its attractive product capabilities, in our opinion, Troux is a tempting takeover target. Although a new owner may retain key personnel and continue to enhance its solution, there is an element of uncertainty. Buyers should negotiate contract conditions that bind successor companies to protect them against this possibility.
• Troux's innovative alliance with BDNA announced in April 2009 did not pan out as planned; however, an internally offered catalog is available in its stead.