TOGAF Versus FEAF Essay

Length: 6 pages Sources: 5 Subject: Business - Management Type: Essay Paper: #71217675 Related Topics: Adoption, Architecture, System Architecture, Litigation
Excerpt from Essay :

Open Group Architecture Framework (togaf) Federal Enterprise Architecture (feaf)

The objective of this study is to conduct an in-depth analysis of The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEAF). This study will answer the questions of how The Enterprise Architecture Framework components used by FEAF and TOGAF similar and what need they are addressing and how they are different and why. This study will answer as to whether both of these frameworks equally useful for all situations and provide examples and examine their strengths and weaknesses.

Today's organizations are reported to be in the process of "deploying enterprise architecture functions at the heart of their organizations in order to maximize the impact, effectiveness, and therefore benefits of enterprise architecture." (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 5) However, it is reported that there is a great risk of failure and the enterprise architecture that is 'World-class…is the result of a mature and operations enterprise architecture function" that the organization utilizes for leveraging "the entire suite of enterprise architecture capabilities." (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 5) Organizations are able to "plan and monitor their progress on their particular enterprise architecture journey." (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 5) According to the Enterprise Architects, TOGAF is defined as "a framework -- a detailed method and a set of supporting tools for developing IT and Enterprise Architecture." (2014, p. 1) Huang, et L (2009 ) writes that TOGAF is "more like a process to tuide the development of an EAF rather than a framework structure. Thereore, TOGAF can help enterprises build their own EAF with their own processes." (p.173)

I. TOGAF 9

TOGAF 9 is reported to make provision of support to a "modular iterative and incremental approach to enterprise architecture" in regards to the manner in which development of architectures are undertaken and in their capability. There are five primary steps in the world-class enterprise architecture approach including the following five steps:

(1) Identification of the business drivers for enterprise architecture;

(2) Identification of the required enterprise architecture capabilities;

(3) Assessment of the current maturity of enterprise architecture;

(4) Determination of the roadmap approach for enterprise architecture; and (5) Selection and customization of an enterprise architecture framework. (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 6)

TOGAF is reported to make provision of three layers of structure including: (1) an architecture development methodology; (2) an enterprise continuum; and (3) a resource base. (The Open Group, 2007 cited in Huang, et al., p. 180)

I. Identification of Business Drivers

The mortgage market subprime crisis resulted in the necessity of changes that were significant and it was determined that the Bank business model must be shifted toward a deposit-based model and that sales had to be increased "by improving their cross-selling capabilities, product bundling and customer-based pricing models" in addition to attracting new clients that were lower in terms of their worth for the purpose of increasing volume. Ultimately the Bank would have to use new methods to create value and specifically using new offers, services and differentiating these from their competition.

II. Step 2: Prioritization of the Capabilities of Enterprise Architecture

A baseline maturity assessment was conducted and the team agreed that the Bank was "typical of a large bureaucratic type of organization" and that while "projects were individually well run and managed" that these generally "progressed in silos that rarely joined up to the build the bigger picture." (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 7) The team met and stated that the primary aspects of the architecture were:

(1) An emphasis on comprehending the business processes and that these would be required to be designed and implemented expediently and that bundling of products would assist in the products entering into the market more quickly; (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001)

(2) Coordination of the efforts of the various products would be of great importance; (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001)

(3) Reference models would need to be developed for the sales channel and for use in constructing an infrastructure that was consistent and compatible with channel development in the future; (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001) and (5) Lack of resources meaning the project would be incremental and implemented in stages. (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 8)

These considerations led to the following agreements for the upcoming six to twelve month period of the project:

(1) Focus on architecture at the strategic and portfolio management levels; and (2) Program level architecture. (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, p. 8)

III. Step 3: Implementation of TOGAF 9

It is reported that task and deliverables of TOGAF 9 included: (1) Architecture Vision for growth in sales and creation of value; and (2) Need of an architecture definition document that focuses on the "business, information systems, and data aspect area of the Architecture Content Framework and that defines reference models for the customer channels." (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001)

IV. Step 4: Determination of TOGAF 9 Templates and Best Practices

The conceptual reference architecture was such that used the infrastructure...

...

It is reported that there were solution-level business value chains used to inform the project and that the mortgage origination and service value chain was developed as follows:

Origination

(1) Design of product;

(2) Management of risk;

(3) Underwriting; and (4) Granting and Cash Transfer.

Servicing

(1) After-Sales Management;

(2) Recovery; and (3) Litigation.

V. Step 5: Measurement of Success

Measurement of TOGAF development and success is needed periodically to ensure that resources are not wasted foolishly on components that are doomed to fail. (Chief Information Officer Council, 2001)

VI. Enterprise Architecture Benefits

The benefits of the use of Enterprise Architecture include the following stated benefits:

(1) Alignment: this is used to ensure that the enterprise implementation aligns with the intention of the management; (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(2) Integration: standardization and interoperability organizationally-wide is needed; (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(3) Change: this involves the facilitation and management of chain in consideration of all enterprise aspects; (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(4) Time-to-Market: this is focused on the reduction of "systems development, applications, generation, modernization timeframes, and resource requirements; (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(5) Convergence: this involves focuses on development of an IT product portfolio that is standard as based on the Technical Reference Model (TRM). (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

The control, management and monitoring of Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework requires that certain selection criteria be addressed including those in the areas as follows:

(1) Policy including: (a) regulatory and legislative direction; (b) agency policy; and (3) the required compatibility with other agencies or involving joint policy.( The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(2) Enterprise including: (a) Enterprise context; (b) experience with specific framework; (c) mandates and drivers as well as an emphasis on "business vs. infrastructure or operational vs. technical issues; (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001) and (3) EA Products including: (a) priorities, intended uses and desire level of detail such as large-scale modernization compared and IT environment that is stable (b) resource and scheduling constraints on the efforts of modeling; and (c) existing architecture product availability. (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001, p. 25)

It is reported that the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) makes provision of the needed structure upon which "top-level operation environments and support implementation of IT systems" can be developed, maintained and implemented successfully. The following list the types of architecture along with the views of each actor and the enterprise architecture products that correspond with each.

Figure 1

Source: The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group (2001)

Tool selection criteria in development of FEAF include consideration of the functional area and necessary criteria in the following area:

(1) Development of Enterprise Architecture products

Platform availability

Framework support available

Modeling methods and technique support

Capability of import and export

Cost

Vendor Support including time and cost

Training schedule in terms of cost and length of training

Ease of use

Product Integration

Capacity of product, size of product and product complexity

Integrated and consolidated repository

Multiuser support

Meta-model support

RM support and tracking of issues

CM support

QA support (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(2) Enterprise Architecture product maintenance

Interoperation capacity with other enterprise engineering products and tools/repository development

Traceability to requirements and other enterprise engineering artifacts

RM support/issues tracking

CM support

QA support (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

(3) Dissemination of EA products

Accessibility

Documentation generation in the form of reports and other printed material

Support of media

Levels of access control

Use of hypertext links. (The Open Group Adoption Strategies Working Group, 2001)

Summary and Conclusion

The differences and similarities of TOGAF and FEAF are within the regulations and specifications that each are required to meet…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

World-Class Enterprise Architecture" Framework Guidance and TOGAF 9 Example. The Open Group. April 2010.

A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture. (2001) Chief Information Officer Council. February 2001.

Huang, GQ, et al. (2009) Proceedings of the 6th CIRP -- Sponsored International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology. Springer Science & Business Media. 12 Dec 2009. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?id=keXx8EXfL6IC&dq=togaf,+feaf&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The Open Source Group (2007) cited in Huang, GQ, et al. (2009) Proceedings of the 6th CIRP -- Sponsored International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology. Springer Science & Business Media. 12 Dec 2009. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?id=keXx8EXfL6IC&dq=togaf,+feaf&source=gbs_navlinks_s


Cite this Document:

"TOGAF Versus FEAF" (2014, November 23) Retrieved August 19, 2022, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/togaf-versus-feaf-2153198

"TOGAF Versus FEAF" 23 November 2014. Web.19 August. 2022. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/togaf-versus-feaf-2153198>

"TOGAF Versus FEAF", 23 November 2014, Accessed.19 August. 2022,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/togaf-versus-feaf-2153198

Related Documents
Enterprise Architecture in an Organization
Words: 5107 Length: 14 Pages Topic: Business - Management Paper #: 53688740

Enterprise Architecture Barratt, C.C., Acheson, P., & Luken, E. (2010). Reference models in the electronic library: The Miller Learning Center at the University of Georgia. Reference Services Review 8(1), 44 The authors of this article provide the most effective ways of providing support to the patrons of the large university to ease the undertaking of activities within its electronic library. The authors conducted research to evaluate the effectiveness of different models of