Framework method

> That is made clear in the Structure of the TOGAF
> Document Figure in which business vision and drivers and business
> capabilities are clearly outside of the architecture.

Not exactly outside, George! Rather the other way around... everything else is subsumed within (and follows from) Business Architecture, unless you are building an organisation bottom-up (which is not untrue of many I have seen). See this from TOGAF9:



Best regards,
Joseph

On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, "Pitagorsky George"
wrote:

> I agree that TOGAF centers on the IT, as do mot of the EA initiatives I
> have encountered. That is made clear in the Structure of the TOGAF
> Document Figure in which business vision and drivers and business
> capabilities are clearly outside of the architecture. The figure
> includes a reference to "non-architectural aspects of business
> operations." Even the business architecture piece refers to the
> business architecture as a means to "support an agreed Architecture
> Vision", implying that the business architecture is something outside of
> the architecture itself.

> The integration of all aspects of the enterprise into an architectural
> vision is a logical extension of an architecture approach. It is a
> challenge to make the transition from IT architecture supported by
> business architecture for use in governance and expense control to a
> true enterprise architecture that sets a stage for ongoing process
> optimization. To make that transition, there is need for cultural
> change.

> George Pitagorsky
> Consultant at NYC Dept of Education
> 718 707 4536

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin (PragmaticEA.com) Smith
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Framework method

> @Andrew Galletly:" Togaf does state that the inputs to the
> Architecture Vision "such as the enterprise mission, vision, strategy,
> and goals - have been documented as part of some wider business
> strategy or enterprise planning activity that has its own lifecycle
> within the enterprise", however, they are still an input and as such
> form the scope of any subsequent architecture work. Is the omission
> of this
> Business Context-type work your rationale for stating Togaf is not an
> EA Framework?"

> Yes. But that's not the only difference/reason why I say TOGAF is not
> an EA framework.

> As soon as you get down to project level work, it's not EA. EA does
> exist at that level but only regarding governance and the
> identification and management of Enterprise Debt.

> EA is much much more about strategic planning and about connecting the
> entire breadth of the enterprise but not the depth. EA (IMHO) is a
> cultural approach.

> You can have a look at how I contrast TOGAF with other EA frameworks
> at
> http://www.pragmaticea.com/display-doc.asp?DocName=peaf-overview1-framework-comparison

> Page 10 gives you a 3 dimensional comparison using 6 axes.