TOGAF 9 – first impressions
Okay, so I’m at the TOGAF San Diego conference, where the launch for TOGAF Version 9 is plodding its rather rambling way through. Some very good conversations, but first, a quick first-impressions on the new version – the supposed ‘best practice on enterprise architecture’.
Summary: it’s a point-update, not a true new version. A good clean-up, but nothing much that’s actually new.
The good news: they’ve had the sense to keep the bits that really do work in TOGAF 8 – in particular, the overall principle of the ADM (Architecture Development Method). Given the dominance of CapGemini in running this new ‘version’, I’d been very worried that they would ditch the ADM in favour of CapGemini’s own proprietary Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF): I’m very glad to see that they haven’t gone that route.
The bad news: it’s still hopelessly IT-centric – no improvements there at all. Still the same uselessly IT-focussed, bottom-up “three architectures: Business Architecture, Information Systems Architecture, Technology Architecture”, which is a huge constraint on real whole-of-enterprise architecture; still the same inane “business architecture is everything not-IT”.
In short, yes, it is improved, it is easier to use. But it’s also a huge missed opportunity. Oh well.
to the best of my knowledge, IAF is centered about the “what” question of architecture along two dimensions (conceptual – logical – physical being the first, and business – information – application – technology being the second). I don’t think a process / method is part of IAF. For TOGAF it sort of seems to be the other way around, the real value is in the ADM. Integrating TOGAF and IAF might actually make a lot of sense in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this?
Like you I am filled with dispair about where TOGAF is going under the influence of Cap Gemini…I have seen this before in standands work I have done in ISO. I can tell you as one of the original guys on the TOGAF development that we were always trying to move towards linking with the strategic planning process. I spend most of my time trying to NOT use the words “Enterprise Architecture” at Board Level as it just screams technology too much…
If should share with you a some comments I have made to AGIMO at the Australian government level as I can see a MAJOR dislocation occuring soon as part of the complete re-engineering of the Australian Government IT sector…interested in your comments so please have a read at