13 Mapping the EA Leader’s Guide to the TOGAF Framework
The EA Leader’s approach described in this Guide can be mapped to two central elements in the TOGAF framework: the Architecture Development Method (ADM) and the TOGAF Content Framework.
The activity described in this Guide follows the ADM’s Preliminary Phase; the Preliminary Phase is a customized path through the TOGAF ADM. This journey highlights a practical example of the TOGAF concept of iteration, answering the correct question at the right level of detail to inform the next question and decision.
The answers to the questions represent information that may be aligned with the contents of the TOGAF Content Framework. How this information is rendered is dependent upon:
- How the EA team is structured
- The tools it uses
- The nature of the EA Repository
- How the EA Capability performs information management
High-functioning teams will take a more rigorous approach to information management (EA Content Framework), employ a more formal architecture description discipline (EA Content Metamodel), and utilize purpose-built modeling and repository management tools (EA Repository). For more detail, see Section 8.4 (Information Managed by the EA Capability).
13.1 Mapping the EA Leader’s Guide to TOGAF ADM Phases
The Preliminary Phase is designed as a customized journey of the TOGAF ADM. This journey is predicated on the best practice of developing EA. The ADM is not a linear process model; rather it is a logical method that places key activity steps together for the purpose of understanding the relationship of activity and clarifying information flow. In Table 9 several TOGAF ADM phases are entered iteratively. Partial indicates work only to the extent needed to answer the question at hand. More elaboration can be done in subsequent architecture work.
For a graphical representation of this journey see Figure 19. The graphic in Figure 19 focuses on Phase A. It highlights that in order to complete Phase A, some amount of work is needed in Phases B, C, and D. The ADM is used to develop the EA. There is no difference between exercising the ADM to architect an EA Capability, a finance capability, a portfolio, or an organizational strategy. We are using the concepts of ADM to support two different activities. Application of steps in ADM phases is limited by the context of supporting the EA Capability.
Table 9: Activity and Key Deliverables
Topic |
Mapping to TOGAF ADM Phase |
Enterprise Context and EA Context |
Partial Strategic Level Phase B Enterprise context:
EA context specific for the EA Capability:
|
Business Objectives for the EA Capability |
Capability Level Phase A For the EA Capability:
|
Architecture Governance |
Partial Segment/Capability Level Phase B For the enterprise:
For the EA Capability:
|
Alignment with Other Frameworks |
Partial Capability Level Phase B & Partial Phase C (Data) For the enterprise:
For the EA Capability:
|
Customization of Architecture Contents and Metamodel |
Capability Level Phase C (Data) For the EA Capability:
|
Organization Model for the EA Team |
Partial Capability Level Phase B For the EA Capability:
|
Process Model |
Partial Capability Level Phase B Capability Level Phase C (App) and Capability Level Phase D For the enterprise:
For the EA Capability:
|
Create the EA Capability Roadmap |
Capability Level Phase E Create a roadmap highlighting development of the EA Capability by changes in the:
For the EA Capability:
|
Capability Level Phase F and Capability Level Phase G For the enterprise:
For the EA Capability:
|
13.2 Mapping EA Content, EA Leader’s Approach, and Metamodel
None of the questions or concerns raised in this Guide are purely technical or isolated to a single field or dimension. To deliver on the expectation of EA Capability, other frameworks and best practices should be brought together and customized to meet specific needs of the enterprise’s environment, roles, and responsibilities.
Based on the activities discussed in this Guide, here is a sample mapping of information and where it maps to the generic TOGAF Content Metamodel.
Table 10: Mapping to TOGAF Content Metamodel
Note: Mapping is dependent upon the final metamodel.
Topic |
Content |
TOGAF Content |
Enterprise Context and EA Context |
Goals, strategies, objectives, initiatives, success measures Plans (business, strategy, workforce, cash flow) Competitive and tactic analysis, operating model, what-if scenarios, scorecards Locations, partners, suppliers |
Business Architecture Portfolio Management Project Management Financial Management |
Business Objectives for the EA Capability |
Strategies, objectives, initiatives, success measures |
EA Capability and Maturity Model |
Scoping the Depth and Breadth of Business Impact with the EA Capability |
Process diagrams and models, service and servicing models, portfolio and investments, demand/need descriptions People, skills, organizational charts |
Business Architecture EA Capability and Maturity Model Reference Architectures and Standards |
Business Objectives for the EA Capability Alignment with Other Frameworks Organization Model for the EA Team Process Model |
People, skills, organizational charts Customer interaction options, types/modes, tools, demands, security/privacy management plans, operational continuity plans Information system data – requirements, applications, tools, solutions, defects, methods/methodology Geospatial data IT networks and their connectivity/interaction maps |
EA Capability and Maturity Model Requirement Management Operating Models Change Management Maturity Management Information Technology Lifecycle Management |
Architecture Governance Process Model |
Knowledge management plans, information exchange matrix, events and interactions list, roles, responsibilities, escalation plans |
Risk Management Governance Model |
Table 11 provides a list of alternative EA Content Frameworks. Specific mapping White Papers exist between the TOGAF Standard and BIAN, DoDAF, Frameworx, and SABSA (see Referenced Documents).
Table 11: List of EA Content Frameworks
Framework |
Framework Description |
AGATE |
The France DGA Architecture Framework |
BIAN |
Banking Industry Architecture Network |
Deloitte EAF |
Deloitte Consulting Enterprise Architecture Framework |
DNDAF |
The Department of National Defence Architecture Framework (Canada) |
DoDAF |
The US Department of Defense Architecture Framework |
FDIC-EAF |
FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (US) |
FEAF |
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (US) |
Frameworx |
TM Forum |
GEA |
Government Enterprise Architecture – Queensland Government |
MoDAF |
The UK Ministry of Defense Architecture Framework |
NAF |
The NATO Architecture Framework |
Navigate |
Conexiam Enterprise Architecture Content Framework |
NIST EA |
NIST Enterprise Architecture framework (US) |
NORA |
Nederlandse Overheid Referentie Architectuur (The Netherlands) |
OBASHI |
The OBASHI Business & IT Methodology and Framework |
OEAF |
Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework |
PEAF |
Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework |
PERA |
Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture Framework |
SABSA |
The SABSA Institute Enterprise Security Architecture |
TEAF |
Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (US) |
UAF |
United Architecture Framework (replacement for UPDM) |
UPDM |
United Profile for DoDAF and MoDAF |
Zachman |
Zachman Framework |
Note that most maturity models use the term “maturity” to measure the ability of an organization to control change of a capability or process; common usage associates maturity with quality of delivery. We recommend you are very clear on your usage and objective when referencing a maturity model.
- US Department of Commerce (DoC) has developed an IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model (ACMM) to aid in conducting internal assessments
- Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM); refer to: http://cmmiinstitute.com/
- US Government’s Office of the CIO Maturity Models; refer to: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_002340.pdf and http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Enterprise_Architecture/PROD01_004935
- National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) EA Maturity Model; refer to: www.nascio.org/publications/documents/nascio-eamm.pdf
- Innovation Value Institute; refer to: http://ivi.nuim.ie/understanding-it-cmf and http://ivi.nuim.ie/service-management-capability-assessment
- US Government Office of Management and Budget’s Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework; refer to: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/eaaf/
- A Carver Policy Governance Guide, Ends and the Ownership, Volume 2, J. Carver, M. Carver, J-B Carver Board Governance Series
- Are you Sure you have a Strategy? D. Hambrick, J. Fredrickson, The Academy of Management Executive; November 2001, 15, 4; ABI/INFORM Global
- Beyond Financial Literacy: The Importance of Business Acumen Training for Managers and Employees, Raymond Green, Paradigm Learning, 2009; refer to: www.paradigmlearning.com/documents/WP_Business%20Acumen.pdf
-
Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology, Stephen H. Spewak, QED Publishing Group, 1993.
A 2002 presentation by Spewak on Enterprise Architecture planning can be found at: http://apps.adcom.uci.edu/EnterpriseArch/PresentationsConferences/EAWorkshop12172002.ppt - Enterprise Architecture Validation, Jaap Schekkerman, White Paper; refer to: www.serc.nl/lac/2003/papers/EnterpriseArchitectureValidationFullversion.pdf
- Enterprise Value: Governance of IT Investments – The Business Case, Cuypers Ataya, IT Governance Institute (ITGI), 2006
- Having Trouble with your Strategy? Then Map It, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, Harvard Business Review, September 2000; refer to: harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=5165
- Information Technology and the Board of Directors, Richard Nolan, Warren F. McFarlan, Harvard Business Review, October 2005
- Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want, Curtis R. Carlson, William W. Wilmot, Crown Business, 2006
- IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Peter Weill, Jeanne W. Ross, Harvard Business School Press, 2004
- Key Concepts in IT Financial Management: Funding, Costing, Pricing, and Chargeback, Gartner, April 2012
- Managing, Henry Mintzberg, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2011
- Out of the Box: Strategies for Achieving Profits Today and Growth Tomorrow through Web Services, John Hagel III, Harvard Business School Press, 2002
- Performance Dashboards: Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing your Business, Wayne Eckerson, Wiley, 2005
- Practical Project Delivery, Mike Turner, Project Management Office (PMO) webcast series; refer to: www.brightwork.com/webcasts/pmo_series.htm
- Putting Leadership Back into Strategy, Cynthia Montgomery, Harvard Business Review, January 2008
- Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, 2nd Edition, Kees van der Heijden, Wiley, 2005
- Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2004
- Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management, H. Mintzberg, J. Lampel, B. Ahlstrand, 2005
- The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World, Peter Swartz, Currency Doubleday, 1996
- The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996
- The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, M.E. Porter, NY, Free Press, 1985 (republished with a new introduction, 1998); refer to: www.hbs.edu/faculty/product/193
- The Core Competencies, C.K. Prahalad, Allen Hammond, Stuart L. Hart; refer to: https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-core-competence-of-the-corporation/ar/1
- The Delta Model, Dean L. Wilde II, Arnoldo C. Hax; refer to: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-delta-model-adaptive-management-for-a-changing-world
- The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, C.K. Prahalad, Stuart L. Hart; refer to: www.strategy-business.com/article/11518
- The Future and How to Think About It, Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) Report, UK Government, 1999
- The Gandhian Engineering, R.A. Mashelkar; refer to: www.worldacademy.org/files/Gandhian%20Engineering%20by%20RA%20 Mashelkar.pdf
- The Invisible World of Association, H. Mintzberg, R. Molz, E. Raufflet, P. Sloan, C. Abdallah, R. Bercuvitz, C.H. Tzeng, Leader to Leader, pp.37-45, 2005
- The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, Eric Ries, p.103, Crown Publishing, 2014
- The Living Company, Arie De Geus; refer to: https://hbr.org/1997/03/the-living-company
- The Science of Persuasion, Robert B. Cialdini, Scientific American Mind, Vol. 14, Issue 1, January 1, 2004
- The Second Machine Age, Eric Brynjolfsson, Andrew McAfee; refer to: http://secondmachineage.com
- The St. Gallen Business Model Navigator, Oliver Gassmann, Karolin Frankenbergerm, Micheala Csik, University of St. Gallen, 2012
- The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2011
- The Structuring of Organizations, Henry Mintzberg, Prentice Hall, January 1979; refer to: www.mintzberg.org/books/structuring-organizations-synthesis-research
- Simon Wardley Blog; refer to: http://blog.gardeviance.org/2015/09/somethings-are-different-some-remain.html
- World-Class EA: Business Reference Model, White Paper (W146), published by The Open Group, May 2014; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/w146
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACMM Architecture Capability Maturity Model
ADM Architecture Development Method
AEA Association of Enterprise Architects
APQC American Productivity and Quality Center
BIAN Banking Industry Architecture Network
BPMN Business Process Model and Notation
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CEB Corporate Executive Board
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CISR Center for Information Systems Research
CMM Capability Maturity Model
COGS Cost of Goods Sold
DNDAF The Department of National Defence Architecture Framework (Canada)
DoC Department of Commerce (US)
DoDAF Department of Defense Architecture Framework (US)
EA Enterprise Architecture
EPCM Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Management
ERM Enterprise Risk Management
FFLV Functions, Flows (Processes), Layers, and Views
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
IoT Internet of Things
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ITGI IT Governance Institute
M&A Merger and Acquisition
NASCIO National Association of State Chief Information Officers
NPV Net Present Value
OPEX Operating Expenditure
PMI Project Management Institute
PMO Project Management Office
POS Point of Sale
ROI Return On Investment
SCOR Supply Chain Operations Reference (model)
SEI Software Engineering Institute
SFIA Skills Framework for the Information Age
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
UML Unified Modeling Language
Footnotes
[1] The terms business, company, organization, and enterprise are often used interchangeably in various texts. This Guide uses the term Enterprise to refer to a logical entity that is taking part in an economic activity; i.e., one that involves some kind of risk/reward or new way of solving socio-economic problems. Likewise, the term organization is in reference to a group of personnel brought together to perform a set of tasks and deliver the outcomes defined for them. The term business is used to refer to the team that formulates and manages the outcomes that the Enterprise is set to do. And the term company is used only when it improves readability, though the definition remains that of an Enterprise.
[2] The references in relation to this paragraph are as follows:
- The State of Enterprise Architecture in 2011, Forrester Research; refer to: https://go.forrester.com/blogs/11-11-28-the_state_of_enterprise_architecture_in_2011/
- The State of EA 2014: New Demands, Same Headcount, Forrester Research; refer to: www.forrester.com/report/The+State+Of+EA+2014+New+Demands+Same+Headcount/-/E-RES104542
- The State of EA 2016: Weak Enterprise Agendas Still a Fundamental Problem, Forrester Research; refer to: www.forrester.com/report/The+State+Of+EA+2016+Weak+Enterprise+Agendas+Still+A+Fundamental+Problem/-/E-RES121311
- Gartner 2015, EA Summit Proceedings; refer to: www.gartner.com
- Corporate Executive Board: see www.cebglobal.com/blogs/the-ea-organization-3-0/ and www.cebglobal.com/blogs/enterprise-architecture-you-dont-always-need-a-seat-at-the-table/
[3] Gartner Clarifies the Definition of the Term “Enterprise Architecture” (see Referenced Documents).
[4] Derived from a presentation entitled Enterprise Transformation – An Architecture-Based Approach, by William B Rouse at The Open Group Conference, January 2012.
[5] Intraprise – a geographically or logically defined grouping of autonomous functions within an enterprise with functions not necessarily reaching outside the boundaries of the enterprise. Several intraprises constitute an enterprise.
[6] Adapted from The Open Group White Paper: World-Class Enterprise Architecture and The Open Group White Paper: World-Class EA: A Leader’s Approach to Establishing and Evolving an EA Capability (see Referenced Documents).
[7] The Open Group White Paper: World-Class Enterprise Architecture (see Referenced Documents).
[8] Delivery is the act of taking something to a place. Deployment is organizing and sending people or things to be used for a particular purpose. Architecture is supporting the act of delivery. Value is realized upon deployment and use of a solution. Hence, the difference is use of terms.
[9] The State of Enterprise Architecture in 2011, Forrester Research; refer to: https://go.forrester.com/blogs/11-11-28-the_state_of_enterprise_architecture_in_2011/.
The State of EA 2014: New Demands, Same Headcount, Forrester Research; refer to: www.forrester.com/report/The+State+Of+EA+2014+New+Demands+Same+Headcount/-/E-RES104542
The State of EA 2016: Weak Enterprise Agendas Still a Fundamental Problem, Forrester Research; refer to: www.forrester.com/report/The+State+Of+EA+2016+Weak+Enterprise+Agendas+Still+A+Fundamental+Problem/-/E-RES121311
Gartner 2015, EA Summit Proceedings; refer to: www.gartner.com.
Corporate Executive Board: see www.cebglobal.com/blogs/the-ea-organization-3-0/ and www.cebglobal.com/blogs/enterprise-architecture-you-dont-always-need-a-seat-at-the-table/.
[10] How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, by Michael E. Porter (see Referenced Documents).
[11] The Business Model Canvas, by Alexander Osterwalder (see Referenced Documents).
[12] This diagram is adapted from Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution, by Ross et al. (see Referenced Documents).
[13] PMBOK® Guide, 5th Edition, Figure 13-4, p.397 (see Referenced Documents).
[14] Diffusion of Innovations (1st Edition), E.M. Rogers (see Referenced Documents).
[15] The 2011 article Enterprise Architecture – Critical to Large Transformation Programs, by Suyog Mahendra Shah (see Referenced Documents).
[16] Depth as used in this Guide relates to the level of detail each “purpose” architecture is scoped to explore based on its parent. Architecture for strategy scopes architecture for portfolio and cascades down. Architecture work for a particular purpose can be performed at any level of detail, although the extremes are rare. Always remember the distinction between scoping and outcome intent.
[17] Successful Leaders are linguistically nimble. Often particular techniques place extreme pressure on a word. Technique practitioners will instinctively defend the technique’s value by defending the specialized use of key terminology. The term “function” is one such word.
This Guide distinguishes between words used in a general manner and when a specialized meaning is required. For “function”, this Guide relies on a general meaning, referring to elements of an organization such as HR, Finance, Sales, Plant Management, and Operations as functions. See Section 4.2.3 on the function-based organization model or Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s first meaning for function: “the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used”.
Successful Leaders need to be able to seamlessly switch back and forth between the specialized language of particular techniques and the generalized language of everyday communication.
[18] Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice: Tools, Tips, Best Practices, Ready-to-Use Insights, by Martin van den Berg and Marlies van Steenbergen (see Referenced Documents).
[19] ISO/IEC 38500:2015: Information Technology – Governance of IT for the Organization (see Referenced Documents).
[20] Corporate Governance: An Essential Guide for South African Companies, by Ramani Naidoo (see Referenced Documents).
[21] The source for this material can be found at: www.applied-corporate-governance.com/best-corporate-governance-practice.html, adapted from Applied Corporate Governance (see Referenced Documents).
[22] TOGAF® and SABSA® Integration (see Referenced Documents).
[23] Derived from the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard (see Referenced Documents).
[24] This figure is an abstracted view of the TOGAF Standard – ADM Techniques, Figure 3-1.
[25] Derived from the World-Class Enterprise Architecture White Paper.
[26] For more on blue ocean strategy, see Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Marketspace and Make the Competition Irrelevant, by Kim and Mauborgne (see Referenced Documents). Do not confuse this with green field work. Some efforts may be green field within an enterprise, but the pattern may have been solved elsewhere. There is value in such cross-pollination, and the EA team will play the role of a trusted advisor.
[27] While this has been stressed in the Guide, align to processes the EA Capability is expected to support based upon its purpose. Do not align to those it could support. Worst practice is to fret over linkage to processes the EA Capability could support.
TOGAF® is a registered trademark of The Open Group