Problems of TogaF9 - Part 3

It finally seems that other ”enterprise architects” are publicly starting to criticize Togaf so I am boosted by this and will expand my criticism!

It seems like most enterprise architects define themselves as “EA process designers and facilitators”. Well, to me this seems odd and I will continue criticizing the outputs or “output model” part of Togaf. I will return at some point discussing this topic of “process guru” vs. “output model guru”.

Lets start with Togaf “Business Architecture”. I find it extremely confusing that I find same entities in many places within the hierarchy. Is this not a problem?

Togaf architecture
Source: http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/

PROBLEM 1:

Togaf states:

Function: Delivers business capabilities closely aligned to an organization, but not explicitly governed by the organization.

Mirafor wonders:

Function delivers capabilities but capability is not defined in this picture? Well is it anywhere? Oops, later in the document I find one definition:

Capability: A business-focused outcome that is delivered by the completion of one or more work packages. Using a capability-based planning approach, change activities can be sequenced and grouped in order to provide continuous and incremental business value.

Is outcome same as output? Work packages delivering it? I thought it was delivered by function? capability-based planning approach? Where is this? What is that?

PROBLEM 2:

Togaf states:

Business Service: Supports business capabilities through an explicitly defined interface and is explicitly governed by an organization.

Mirafor wonders:

Business service supports business capabilities through interface? What does this interface do? Interface is technical term and I do not see anywhere in diagram business service linked to business capability like the definition does. Oh I forgot! Capability is not in the diagram. But wait! Business Service is linked to Information System Service. So there could be something cooking here which I just do not crasp at this stage.

I am starting to wonder this function-capability-business service triangle and I can see that Business Service is within Organization Unit between function and function. There many layers of function so a guess this business service is a function after all but someone is just playing games with me!

PROBLEM 3:

Togaf States:

Actor: A person, organization, or system that is outside the consideration of the architecture model, but interacts with it.

Organization Unit: A self-contained unit of resources with goals, objectives, and measures. Organization units may include external parties and business partner organizations.

Role: An actor assumes a role to perform a task

 

Mirafor wonders:

Let us examine statement the following:

• “A person, organization, or system that is outside the consideration of the architecture model, but interacts with it.

Actor is part of the “model” but its outside consideration of the architecture model, still interacting with it? Hello World! So we have enterprise architecture where there are roles fulfilled by actors and role definition where actor performs tasks. I am not sure how much this helps me doing enterprise architecture. Maybe we need far more attributes defining these terms and different logic between the entities.

Lastly, actor can be a person, organization or system but Organization Unit it cannot be! How come?

OK! Enough for today. Cheers all!

Add a Comment