Putting the "E" in TOGAF: An EAdirections Webinar

In our attempt to deliver the latest updates and insights within the EA space, we’ve scheduled a series of free webinars that will happen over the next couple of months. The first webinar in the series “Putting the "E" in TOGAF: An EAdirections Webinar,” will be presented by three managing directors of EAdirections: Larry R. DeBoever, George S. Paras, and Tim Westbrock. Register now for the webinar on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 from 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT to save your webinar seat. Here’s a brief description of the webinar and what you can expect to take out of it by attending:

A number of EA practitioners have concluded that TOGAF is not an effective framework (and ADM is not an effective methodology) for Enterprise(wide) Architecture. TOGAF does not cover aligning long-term corporate strategy with IT, and positions EA as a reactive, rather than proactive, approach. In fairness, many have expressed similar concerns about other EA frameworks and methodologies. This webinar explores the “enterprise-ishness” of TOGAF. We discuss our experiences and practical techniques for extending TOGAF (and other frameworks) to significantly increase its effectiveness across the Enterprise.

If you are a Chief Architect or IT manager evaluating EA frameworks, or if you are struggling to apply TOGAF (or another framework), on an enterprise-wide basis, then this webinar is for you. Topics will include:

What you will learn:

• What are the types of enterprise-wide requirements that users of TOGAF struggle with?
• What are the enterprise-wide architectural activities that EA teams should be performing without a clear ‘Business Requirement’?
• How should an Enterprise Architecture account for the fact that most enterprises do not have an ‘end state’ but rather continually adjust to changing markets and opportunities for innovation?
• Are the artifacts produced by TOGAF effective for communicating with the Board and the Executive Committee? If not, can they be made ‘consumable’?

This webinar is being brought to you by the Enterprise Architectures Conference, don’t forget to take a look at the lineup of speakers we have this year. Click on the link below to register for the free webinar.

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/924415223

We're getting ready to launch a new blog that looks at the broader issues of Enterprise Architecture, update your RSS feed now as we get it ready for our official launch: http://evolveea.blogspot.com/

Types of Enterprise Architecture

In a recent article at Inside Architecture, Nick Malik took time to detail the different enterprise architecture frameworks. He then goes on to pose the question, what would the ideal framework be? What would you take from each of the individual methods below to make your enterprise architecture fit your needs?

- TOGAF - Basic strength: solution architecture. Various models and how to create them. Basic weaknesses: Planning methods and governance framework. Weak on Information Architecture

- FEAF - Basic strength: complete implementation tied to measurement framework. Basic weaknesses: very specific to government, lack of independent process taxonomy keeps processes "in the silo."

- eTOM - Basic strength: excellent process taxonomy with rich details. Strong information architecture. Great for governing external vendors. Basic weaknesses: fairly specific to telecom industry, gaps in governance and enterprise architecture models.

- ITIL - Basic strength: excellent process framework for operations and (now) governance. Basic weaknesses: no architectural methodology to speak of. Sizeable gaps in information or application architecture.

- Enterprise Unified Process - Basic strength: soup-to-nuts coverage of enterprise software development processes, including funding and operations. Basic weaknesses: poor adoption rate and lack of a governing body to allow for growth, minimal architectural methods, no enterprise process or capability framework.

- Zachman - Basic strength: comprehensive taxonomy of architectural artifacts (to let you know when you are done). Basic weaknesses: Lack of published and vetted methods to avoid "boil-the-ocean" exercises and focus on one particular benefit. Very shallow: No detailed process, capability, or solution frameworks for "level 2" detail. Highly proprietary.

We're getting ready to launch a new blog that looks at the broader issues of Enterprise Architecture, update your RSS feed now as we get it ready for our official launch: http://evolveea.blogspot.com/