The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
TOGAF is one of the most popular recognized EA Frameworks in the market, developed in 1995 by The Open Group (Josey, 2011). TOGAF appears like a detailed method and a set of resources for the development of an Enterprise Architecture within the organizations. From its beginnings, TOGAF has had several versions; the most recent are TOGAF 8, and TOGAF 9, which differ to each other, in several aspects. In essence, TOGAF 8 goes in the search to fulfill the definition of Enterprise Architecture, and to obtain it, it is divided in 4 parts: 1. Introduction: It explains key concepts of TOGAF. 2. Architecture Development Method: ADM, is the step by step description of the EA development. 3. Enterprise Continuum: Repository of the EA assets. 4. Resources: Technique and set of tools available to apply the Enterprise Architecture. In 2009 with TOGAF 9, the Framework no longer is made up of 4 main parts but of 7, is then when the Framework versions begin to defer. The two first parts are conserved, but the following is modified; 1. ADM Guidelines and Techniques: Collection of guides and techniques 2. Architecture Content Framework: It describes the architecture devices 3. Enterprise Continuum & Tools: Tools adapted for the development of the Architecture 4. TOGAF Reference Models 5. Architecture Capability Framework: Capacities of the organization to establish the Architecture. One of the most significant differences between the two versions is that they consider styles of Architecture such Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), a key factor to obtain the integration of organization systems. TOGAF, like Zachman’s Framework, look to represent, and to describe the organization with a clear objective. Their goal is to achieve the alignment of all components of the organization, with the strategic objectives (Alwadain, Fielt, Korthaus, & Rosemann, 2011). In addition, the two authors of the frameworks agreed in a series of deliverables. Nevertheless, between both Frameworks are noticeable differences. Zachman clearly says that its Framework is not a methodology), is a structural one (Zachman, 1987). TOGAF conceives his framework, like a method. Zachman describes to the company in a matrix, through some points of view, and some interrogative, TOGAF concentrates more in the processes of the company, and it describes it through 4 views or Architectures. With Zachman, the direction established in the …show more content…
Its objective is the fulfillment of the established definitions in the Clinger-Cohen Act. Like DoDAF, its intention is to provide a common methodology within information technologies; nevertheless, unlike DoDAF, the FEAF is use across the board in the federal government of the United States of North America. FEAF goal is to improve the interoperability between the United States government agencies by implementing a specific obligatory EA framework for the entire federal government. FEAF is a collection of interrelated reference models designed to facilitate the definition of the business functions, as well as the analysis and optimization of federal …show more content…
TOGAF focuses on Enterprise Continuum with Architecture Development Method (ADM). FEAF describes the enterprise as segmented reference models; guides on a migration process from “As Is” to “To Be” architecture; and offers an approach to cataloging assets and measuring the success of EA. These two frameworks were created to integrate the strategic objectives and information systems. FEAF is more of Taxonomy to identify common assets and overlaps. On the other hand, TOGAF is a much richer framework that fully deals with Systems Integration issues (e.g. Governance). FEAF was created specifically for the federal government, versus TOGAF was created for any type of industry. This doesn’t mean that any of this frameworks are limited to a specific industry, but they were created with specific needs in mind (Odongo, Kang, & Ko,