Analysis of Open Group Architectural Framework - Case Study Example

? Analysis of TOGAF to either DoDAF or FEAF Overview of Enterprise Architecture Framework Enterprise Architecture Framework (EA) is a tool that describes how to create as well as to use the enterprise architecture. It is a significant tool that is implemented to design architectural structures in organizations by isolating the architecture depiction into several spheres, layers or other views. The framework further presents models mostly matrices and diagrams for documenting each and every layer. There are mainly three components of the EA framework which are further ascribed as descriptions of architecture, methods for designing architecture along with organization of architects among others. These components are further implemented by the various widely used EA frameworks in organizations among which FEAF, TOGAF and ZACHMAN are prime examples (Bente, Bombosch & Langade, 2012). This study deals with the analysis of two vital EA frameworks i.e. FEAF and TOGAF. Similarity amid FEAF and TOGAF Both The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) frameworks are framed with the intention to enhance the architectural efficiency of companies which would further enable efficient execution of organizational strategies. Another similarity between the two frameworks is that both of them share common EA features and terms within each other. Application of these two frameworks with certain similar concepts of EA will further ensure that there is an agreement among the decision makers in any business organization with regard to dealing with the objectives, requirements as well as processes of the business with the help of advanced technologies. Additionally, these similar EA features in the two frameworks would further assure that decisions related to the investments on technology in any business are taken efficiently. It has been noted that inefficient decision making in this aspect is viewed to harm various the objectives and priorities of organizations (TCRP, 2011). Furthermore, it has also been noted that both FEAF and TOGAF ascribed similar guidance in terms of architectural viewpoints. This aspect further addresses that both the frameworks provide similar directions to the organizations with regard to structuring their enterprise architecture (The Open Group, 2007). Moreover, it has also been analyzed that the rows of the FEAF framework more or less correlate with the rows of the matrix of the TOGAF framework. This similarity between the two frameworks further depicts that both are intended towards dividing architectural description into various crucial layers which are documented in the later stage in a more simplified manner (The Open Group, 2013). Difference between FEAF and TOGAF From the above analysis, it is apparent that both the frameworks i.e. FEAF and TOGAF share certain common features as well as targets between each other. However, it would also be vital to mention that both the frameworks (i.e. FEAF and TOGAF) are developed with diverse intentions which further depict certain inherent changes in their process of working, their ability to ascertain effective results along with their process of implementation among others. Contextually, one of the primary differences between the two frameworks is the aspect that both are controlled by different operators. The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) is operated under the framework of Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF) while the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) is developed by the Chief Information Officers (CIO) in the United States Federal Council. This difference in operational ownership can be vindicated from the fact that FEAF is developed by the US Federal Council which maintains as well as facilitates incorporated systems of architectures within the federal agency. On the other hand, TOGAF focuses on ascertaining good and simplified principles instead of offering a set of complex architecture principles within diverse business units. Additionally, it has also been noted that both the frameworks i.e. FEAF and TOGAF are designed for achieving dissimilar goals. FEAF aims at enabling federal agencies to share valuable information throughout the federal government while TOGAF aims at developing the process of enterprise architecture within an organization (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006). Apart from these, the difference also lies in the aspect of the process of using the two frameworks. TOGAF is implemented in business to mostly depict reviews or completeness of an architectural work. While on the other hand, FEAF is implemented with regard to depicting the technologies and resources to be required in the architectural works (Microsoft, 2007). Furthermore, another set of differences between the two frameworks has been depicted with their effectiveness in certain crucial scenarios. Correspondingly, it has been noted that TOGAF is more effective in terms of process completeness as compared to FEAF. This is owing to the aspect that TOGAF ensures a faster implementation of the process in comparison with FEAF which signifies a slower pace. Additionally, with regard to the reference models, FEAF is viewed to have more effective models as compared to TOGAF. Moreover, the maturity prospect of the FEAF is much more effective in measuring the efficiency along with maturity of different organizational operations by utilizing the enterprise architecture in comparison with TOGAF (Microsoft, 2007). Usefulness of FEAF and TOGAF As mentioned in the above discussion, both the frameworks are efficient in certain sections as well as possess certain differences in others. Notably, FEAF is one of the primary frameworks of the enterprise structure. It is an initiative of the Federal government of the United States with the intent to develop the implementation of EA framework in the Federal agencies that go beyond inter-agency boundaries. It is designed in a way that would facilitate to simplify sharing of information as well as other resources across Federal agencies with reduced costs. However, it has to be depicted that the implementation of FEAF cannot be considered effective in all the situations as a few of the past scenarios have raised concerns over the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. In this regard, certain examples would provide a clearer picture (Gaver, 2010). The fact that the references of the FEAF are termed as models and not as taxonomy created a lot of confusions for organizations which are implementing it. A prominent instance of such confusions was witnessed when a number of people became puzzled by the diagram published by the FEA Program Management Office (PMO) as they thought of the models as the models of the FEA instead of the PMO. This raises a question over its completeness. Furthermore, another example involving the reports of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice would also be vital to consider with regard to understanding the situation where the framework of FEAF fail to deliver much appreciative results. The reports depicted that after the implementation, FEAF fails to reveal real results in certain cases. Another example depicts certain problems with the FEAF framework. Reportedly, the process is very much slow and most of the entities implementing the same end up to only the third stage of the process and not the fifth stage of the process (Gaver, 2010). Correspondingly, TOGAF is also among the most prominent architectural frameworks of the enterprise architecture (EA). The Open Group Standard Framework (TOGAF) is initiated with the intention to enhance architectural methodology used by many of the organizations in the federal system. The framework also entails the capability of enhancing the efficiency of the business with the implementation of their architectural framework. Additionally, it can also be depicted that the framework is useful in most of the situations where it is being implemented. Although, certain changes have to be initiated in order to enhance the efficiency of the framework or eliminate the chances of any possible inefficiency in the future context. For example, reduction of complexity of the process of the framework by making it more actionable along with enhancing the elements of technology could be amid the changes that can be initiated in the framework (Temnenco, 2007). Strengths and Limitations of TOGAF and FEAF Both the frameworks depict certain positive as well as negative aspects in the above sections of the research. Owing to those aspects, certain strengths and limitations of the two frameworks can further be determined precisely. Strengths of FEAF One of the biggest strengths of the framework is that it would provide a common approach to the federal agencies of the US with regard to IT acquisition. Furthermore, it has also been noted that the framework is also capable of easing the process of information sharing within the federal agencies at a reduced cost. The framework is also viewed to be providing a detailed process of the transition of the output. In precise, it can be depicted that the framework clearly defines the results of its implementation. An example in this regard would be the Service Component Reference Model (SRM) of the FEAF that divides a particular domain of services into various different types i.e. customer service would be divided into aspects such as preferences of the customers, customer relationship management along with customer assistance domain in a more clear and defined manner (Hausman & Cook, 2010). Limitations of FEAF As a part of the limitations of the framework, it can be depicted that the framework is not useful as other frameworks of the enterprise architecture with regard to its taxonomy. Furthermore, the framework is also depicted to be implemented only at a higher level which further limits the prospects of its wider implementation. In addition to this, since the framework is owned by the Federal government its application in private business sector is seen to be highly uncertain. An example in this regard will be fruitful to consider. According to the report of the General Accounting Office (GAO), only a few agencies have initiated the foundation of the FEAF since its establishment (Hausman & Cook, 2010). Strengths of TOGAF Among the strengths of the TOGAF framework, its capability of providing a specific process for developing architectural framework is at the primary level. Furthermore, the framework is considered to be quite flexible and simplified which further make it suitable to be used in any sort of organizations. The fact that it intends to implement only advanced as well as proven technologies is also included as among its strengths. An example in this regard will be the aspect that the framework implements a handful number of certification of technological tools by its name (Raynard, 2008). Limitations of TOGAF In relation to its limitations, the framework is believed to be less capable with regard to delivering any specific or end results. In addition to this, TOGAF can only deal with a particular division of architectural requirements which reduces its comprehensiveness. Thus, in order to deal with such complexities there is a need to consider the type scenario in which these frameworks are used. This in turn can facilitate ascertain proper control over the architecture design by a considerable extent. References Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Langade, S. (2012). Collaborative enterprise architecture: enriching EA with lean, agile, and enterprise 2.0 practices. Waltham: Newnes. Gaver, S. B. (2010). Why doesn’t the federal enterprise architecture work? Retrieved from http://tmiconsulting.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/why-doesn_t-the-fea-work-part-1-sgaver-2010.pdf Hausman, K., & Cook, S. L. (2010). IT architecture for dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Microsoft. (2007). A comparison of the top four enterprise-architecture methodologies. Retrieved from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx Raynard, B. (2008). TOGAF the open group architecture framework 100 success secrets - 100 most asked questions: the missing TOGAF guide on how to achieve and then sustain superior enterprise architecture execution. North Carolina: Lulu.com. Temnenco, V. (2007). TOGAF or not TOGAF: extending enterprise architecture beyond RUP. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/jan07/temnenco/#ibm-pcon The Open Group. (2007). TOGAF version 8.1.1 enterprise edition. Wilco: Van Haren Publishing. The Open Group. (2013). Other architectures and frameworks. Retrieved from http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/chap37.html TCRP. (2011). Transit enterprise architecture and planning framework. Washington: Transportation Research Board. Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/iis/2006/Urbaczewki_Mrdalj.pdf Read More