TOGAF AND FEAF Reference Models

TOGAF AND FEAF Reference Models

Name

Institution affiliation

Date

Executive Summary

In modern day business environment, it is advisable to relate to reference models as this ensures that quality and customer assurance are upheld at various levels of organizational development. In the technical world, reference models are commonly known as framework for enterprise architecture. In addition, the technology debut presents a more critical situation that needs strategic approaches in dealing with different situations. A good example of these reference models is the TOGAF and FEAF, which presents reliable reference that organizations can references from periodically. TOGAF is the acronym for The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) while FEAF is the acronym for Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). The commencing research will attempt to prove that these reference models are instrumental in providing organizations with reliable technical blueprints that can be applied to meet standards and business models.

Similarities

The two approaches courtesy of TOGAF and FEAF provides a framework of effective management that can be applied in organizations to achieve sufficiency. Taleb (2012, pp. 44) argues TOGAF distinguishes four different subsets of an enterprise architecture. This is a close similarity with FEAF, which also champions the use of data application and technology architecture to arrive to give set of business strategies. Like FEAF, TOGAF is instrumental in conducting a process to guide the development of an EAF and not necessary framework structures. For this reason, both TOGAF and FEAF builds enterprise by enabling it construct its own processes.

Secondly, TOGAF provides a distinct layer for business information application and technology. This is a close similarity with TEAF, which provides a public domain in relation to technology. The central purpose of TEAF is to support architecture development and management in a technology platform. Thus in summary, one will notice that both FEAF and TOGAF combines different perspectives and allow modeling on different levels of management abstraction. The two combines focus on the presentation of intra-organizational elements and provide support in developing close cultural, organizational collaborations. The two approaches also cover a broader area than AIOS and this focuses on a course-gained on strategic issues and not necessary operational issues such as model driven development. Additionally, it is good to note that the two approaches are vital in apprehending clarity, blurry, and varying definitions of essential terms and as well, a number of elements that lead to organizational, professional development.

Differences

While the TOGAF approaches focuses, on possible designing, governing and implementing enterprise information architecture, on the other hand, the FEAF advocates for the strategic technology and business management for design and performance improvement. TOGAF sponsors a generic architecture which is tailored to ensure that specific organizational goals are met with appropriate artifacts and tools. Secondly, it is good to note that TOGAF is flexible and enables enterprise developers to integrate and use other frameworks proactively. In contrast, FEAF approach advocates the usage of Zachman’s framework. While this approach is appropriate and versatile, it is good to note that this approach is relatively rigid. Technically, the Zachman’s approach is confounded in a data and function column. The column is modeled separately from views a violation of orthogonality principle.

Moreover, FEAF is developed by the federal system, which as well maintains and manages the architectures in a meta-architecture framework. Based on this approach, Camarinha-Matos Paraskakis and Afsarmanesh (2009, p. 189) argues that FEAF is independently developed and maintained and managed architectures that are subsequently integrated into the meta-architecture framework and this can be applied by government institutions and private businesses. This approach specifies the abilities of migration, interoperability, and conformance. For this reason, it is good to note that FEAF allows specific business units to have various architectures developed and governed on the standalone architecture projects. The approach is crucial since there is a wider possibility of developing architecture and keeping flexible and well documented.

In contrast, TOGAF empowers business enterprises to foster their own independent strategies of architecture development. Manuputty and Wijaya (2013, pp. 177) argues that TOGAF provides a foundation for the development of independent disciplines. For this case, the application architecture provides a blueprint for individual application systems deployed in interactions with relationships formulation business processes. The data architecture usually provides description to the organizational, physical and logical data assets and data management. Data is controlled by the nature and quality of software and hardware being pursued by the organization. These are controlled by two levels of services, which are business services and information services distinguished by the TOGAF approach. Now this is a lucrative strategy since it empowers the independent development of frameworks based on organization requirements. Through this approach, developers are in a better position of developing independent frameworks proactively.

Usefulness of these frameworks

Both frameworks are essential in encouraging the development of I.T framework that are proactive and widely responsive to the overall management strategies. In this regard, it is notable that the issue of strategic management becomes a crucial prerequisite that for both of these approaches. This is in line with aligning business and technical platforms to achieve a widely desired organizational agility. The goal is to improve organizational performance by providing a guide from federal and corporate references. As a result, execute business goals are examined and the approaches are responsive to various needs of the organization. Hence, it is good to note that both approaches are imperative in mitigating cost by fostering accountability and efficiency although their usefulness varies.

Usefulness of TOGAF

In applying TOGAF, developers need to determine the nature of existing environment. This reinstatement of based on the ability to apply TOGAF terms and views and constraints in external environments. For this reason, TOGAF operates in certification programs that seek to govern how architectures should be developed in line with the wider policy development goals. In fact, Nakakawa et al, (2013, pp. 135) argues that the TOGAF certification prerequisites enable the application of tools, training and services for consultants based on the products and services which are certified on the conformance of TOGAF standards.

By using the TOGAF approach, the business stands a wider advantage of netting customers by use of legal binding warranty of conformance. Warranty of conformance not only ensures that the customers are assured of good services but as well enables the development of positive service orientation one that is based on decorum. Moreover, TOGAF specifies training tools and courses, which can be certified and seeks to offer maximum productivity in relation to quality and ability to ensure that the specified services are delivered on time. The alongside certificate ensures that an organization can compete favorably in relation to the Association of Open Group Enterprise Architects (AOGEA) with limited costs (Sasmito, 2013, pp. 135).

Furthermore, the certificate is specified with the logs and this act as the wider promotion offerings. In summary, it should be noted that TOGAF ensures that professionalism is handling services is upheld. The industry standards are commercially responsible for the supply of products in the market. Hence, the statement acts as an assurance that customers get what they had requested in registered Enterprise Architects.

Usefulness of FEAF

On this hand, the FEAF provides a plethora of benefits to users and it should be recalled that the advantages seek to foster layered framework and models for enterprise architecture. The good thing is that the FEAF is empowered by the federal system and this encourages the development of assurance levels. For this reason, it is notable that the government involvement in providing standards is responsible in enhancing quality assurances in various levels of deploying services.

Barratt, Acheson and Luken (2010, pp. 45) argues that when applying the FEAF model, the organization is rest assured of integration of formal models, which are advanced and are industry conscious and are based on planning tools. For this reasons, there are several benefits that the users experiences. Firstly, there is a general reduced cost in the long-run. Secondly, there is a participatory gain in a diverse set of stakeholders. Secondly, through the FEAF approach, there is a widespread consistency of standards, which are maintained in very organizations. Thirdly, using FEAF ensures that flexibility is upheld at several levels of the architectural design. Fourthly, the FEAF ensures that current trends of technology are applied in line with industry requirements. Fifthly, the FEAF ensures that the quality is maintained at various levels of product evolution.

The basic philosophy of FEAF is enabling of appliance of advanced technologies such as ITS. ITS has been in evolution since 1990 and itself representation an SE exercise of the basic structure organized around the user service which is derived from the user needs and requirements. For this reason, it is notable that ITS’ ensures that their links between organization mission and technology investments decisions. In fact, FEAF architecture policy ensures that transit project and system engineering are upheld in various sections of product enrollment. Indeed, Kasmaee, Nassiri and Shabgahi (2010, pp. 117) argues that this reference model ensures that all agencies of different sizes and abilities are in a position to apply these frameworks proactively. Hence, in summary, for the user, it is a welcome message in relation to quality and standard maintenance, which are universal.

Strengths and weaknesses of TOGAF and FEAF

Although these references models have several benefits in relation to the quality, it should be noted that there are underlying weaknesses that are associated with them. For strengths, these references models ensure that there is identification of the structure and model of enterprise architecture, which are relevant to componentized modular I.T architecture. Ideally, both of these models focus on timing, location, resources, data, process and motivation. Hence, this presents reliable strengths, which are vital in delivering information on the nature of enterprise architecture analysis and modeling. Additionally, a variety of business tools is oriented from these frameworks. A close example of these tools is the Enterprise Resource Management system, which acts proactively to deliver services.

However, as stated, these reference models have a plethora of weakness. Firstly, it is good to note that the two TOGAF and FEAF do not define enterprise architecture but only focuses on the process. Most of these process are not configurable in an ideal business situation since most businesses do have different requirements altogether. In addition, the framework per analysis does not design tradeoffs and design rationale documentation of architecture non-functional requirements, and evolution of architecture to address architecture infrastructure. The FEAF and TOGAF are designed to implement, manage, and monitor system, procedures, resources and services with intent of meeting organizational objectives. However, most organizational objectives are divergent to expectations of a given reference model. In most situations, developers are forced to alter vital requirements of any reference model to ensure that organizational goals come first and not the template model. This was the case with Microsoft when it introduced Microsoft Solutions Framework to supplement from TOGAF shortages.

Conclusion

Both of these reference models courtesy of TOGAF and FEAF provides the user with preconfigured templates that are suitable in any organizational setting. The research has explored in depth the nature of these reference models. In this case, the two reference models have a similar approach to technical business conditions, although the two are debuted on divergent business approaches. Further to this, the research has detailed possible similarities and differences of the two reference models. For this reason, an acute distinction has been constructed to specify that each of the reference can be pursued although it is up for the organization to integrate the reference model in the business organizational settings.

References

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 56.

Camarinha-Matos, L., Paraskakis, I., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2009). Leveraging knowledge for

innovation in collaborative networks: 10th IFIP WG 5.5 working conference on virtual

enterprises, PRO-VE 2009, Thessaloniki, Greece, October, 7-9, 2009. proceedings. Berlin: Springer.

Kasmaee, F. K., Nassiri, R., & Shabgahi, G. L. (2010). Achieving CMMI Maturity Level 3 by

Implementing FEAF Reference Models. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology , 2(4), 115-122.

Manuputty, A. D., & Wijaya, A. F. (2013). Information System/Information Technology

Strategic Planning in Order Information Technology Development Strategy Using TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) Methodology in Achieving World Class University in Satya Wacana Christian University. Intelligent Information Management, 05(06), 175-181.

Nakakawa, A., Bommel, P. V., & Proper, H. A. (2013). Supplementing Enterprise Architecture

Approaches With Support For Executing Collaborative Tasks — A Case Of Togaf Adm. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 22(02), 135.

Sasmito, G. W. (2013). Annual Performance Planning Information System with Enterprise

Architecture Modelling the Secretariat of the Central Java Province Parliament Used Framework Togaf. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6, 334-338.

Taleb, M. (2012). Pattern-Oriented Approach for Enterprise Architecture: TOGAF Framework.

journal of software engineering and applications, 05(01), 45-50.