Overview
In San Francisco the Architecture Forum hosted an extended Architecture Forum Workshop,
from the afternoon of Tuesday January 25 through Friday January 28, in which the
members of the Forum progressed a number of key projects, and, in particular, carried
forward the TOGAF 9 development program.
On Saturday January 29 several members of the Forum participated in a joint workshop
with representatives of the OMG, which progressed the ongoing work on identifying
synergies between TOGAF and OMG's Model Driven Architecture (MDA).
New Chair of the Architecture Forum
At the beginning of the meeting, Bill Estrem of Metaplexity Associates was formally
confirmed as the new Chair of the Architecture Forum for 2005.
Sincere thanks were expressed to Chris Greenslade of Frietuna Consultants, the outgoing
Chair, for his dedicated service to the Forum over the past four years.
Chris and Bill expressed the intent to work together for the benefit of the
Forum,
Chris remaining a Supplier Council representative to the Board of The Open Group.
TOGAF 9 Program Management
Judith Jones of Architecting-The-Enterprise, who is leading the overall development
project, gave of an overview of this work.
Over 40 individual members of the Architecture Forum were involved in developing parts
of TOGAF 9. Judith had collated the details of everyone currently participating, their
projects and other related activities, and a timeline for development of
TOGAF 9 throughout
2005 had been established. A series of workshops for the various work segments would be
held over the coming months, under the leadership of the separate work segment leaders,
culminating in publication of TOGAF 9 in January 2006.
Enterprise Scoping and Stakeholders
Judith Jones of Architecting-The-Enterprise gave of an overview of this work.
There was discussion of the linkage between this area and that of Identity Management,
which had been the focus of the plenary conference the previous day. It was recognized
that there was a danger of being over-prescriptive – one approach was simply to lay
out a framework and suggest to enterprises that they do their own stakeholder management,
in whatever way they wanted. The definition of rules and roles is almost always unique to
the enterprise. Identity Management should be an infrastructure service called on by any
application that needs it.
Architecture Development
Simon Dalziel of Architecting-The-Enterprise, who is leading this segment of work, gave
a status update.
This segment covers the first four phases of the current (TOGAF 8) ADM: Architecture
Vision; Business Architecture; Information Systems Architecture; Technology Architecture.
Under Simon's leadership, a detailed set of work packages had been defined, segmented
into three proposed areas: High, Medium, and Low Priority. There was lengthy discussion of
individual packages and the proposed priorities.
Architecture Transformation
Bob Weisman of CGI, who is leading this segment of work, gave a status update, by
remote dial-in.
The scope of this segment is the planning of the execution of an enterprise
transformation program based on the developed architecture. This area represented a
significant expansion of the existing material in TOGAF 8.
It was recognized that there was potential overlap between the areas of transformation
and realization. For the time being, these would continue to be handled as separate
segments. In due course they may need to be rationalized.
There had been several discussions with NASCIO, the organization representing the US
Federal State CIOs, which was very active in this area, and a lot of Bob's material was
based on the work of the NASCIO, and on separate work by the Canadian Federal Government.
NASCIO's framework has the concept of an Information Architecture, distinct from
a
Data Architecture, and this was a concept gaining momentum within the industry.
Bob presented a lot of new material that it was clear would need to be digested and
evaluated before being integrated into TOGAF 9.
Architecture Realization
Judith Jones of Architecting-The-Enterprise gave of an overview of this work.
This segment was about developing the Solutions Building Blocks and populating the
Solutions Continuum. Major pieces were:
- IT Design (solutions and infrastructure design and development)
- Architecture Implementation
- Architecture Delivery
Business realization and value were also relevant here. The governance process should
define the metrics to be imposed in this area. COBIT has lots of points to measure, but no
advice on how to do it. This is an area where TOGAF could add value to
COBIT.
There was detailed discussion of individual packages and decomposition of this area.
Architecture Management/Overview
Architecture Management is an area that covers many diverse fields, and Stuart
MacGregor of Real IRM, who is leading the overall segment, first gave an overview of the
whole area.
Stuart identified several key drivers for TOGAF 9 in this area, including:
- Change Leadership (in particular, the work by Kotter)
- Growing and sustaining an EA capability
- Running EA as a business service
- Business-appropriate capability measurement
- Governance framework
COBIT is a core body of knowledge in the management area that was important for
TOGAF 9. COBIT makes a specific linkage between what the business needs and what IT has to
deliver. The COBIT guidelines are written very simply, and business people can relate to
it. The guidelines are used globally by the auditing profession.
Stuart made a number of specific suggestions on integrating these sources, which were
endorsed by the Forum.
Architecture Management/Framework and Principles
Stuart MacGregor of Real IRM continued with the Framework and Principles area.
Key parts of an ideal principles set are lacking because the TOGAF Governance Framework
did not exist when the principles were created. The levels of governance given in
TOGAF 8
can probably be simplified, using ISACA terminology. Sarbanes-Oxley and Basle-2 were also
relevant.
There was discussion around project methodologies, including Prince2,
PMI, and DSDM,
which also had an approach to program management. It was agreed that we should aim
to make TOGAF 9 agnostic as to specific program methodologies.
There was a possible linkage to Capability Maturity Models, in that organizations
coming to TOGAF need to assess for themselves how much of this area they
are capable of
dealing with.
It was recognized that it would be very useful to be able to reference a model such as
SCOR – a decomposed process hierarchy – to get true process thinking into TOGAF
(what are the processes, and what technology supports them, etc.).
Another suggestion was to use GERAM as a means of assessing the work on
TOAGF 9.
Architecture Management/Architecture Governance
Stuart MacGregor of Real IRM gave an overview of the governance area.
Governance is a key part of TOGAF 9. Recent research done by Peter Wiehl
(Sloane MIT)
indicates that organizations that have effective governance in place demonstrate up to 40%
extra RoI to shareholders.
ISACA, which published the COBIT guidelines, has a presence in more than 100 countries,
with over 40,000 members worldwide. ISACA’s control objectives are going through a
major rework.
Most of COBIT can be downloaded for free. (There is a $75 fee for auditing guidelines.)
Using COBIT allows the points of linkage to be identified between EA as a discipline and
COBIT as a framework. It was recognized that this liaison offers a good mapping to
TOGAF 8,
in which IT investment is a weak point. There is also close linkage between the TOGAF
detailed Architecture Conformance checklists and the COBIT control objectives.
The potential benefit for ISACA in this work is greater understanding by
auditors as to what EA is all about, and how the artifacts of EA can help the auditors achieve their
goals.
There was discussion of the Work Packages and their allocation across the
TOGAF 9 work
program.
Architecture Management/Model and Information Management
Alan Gibson of Popkin Software is leading this part of the Architecture Management
segment, and he gave an overview of his views.
One possibility was to split the overall TOGAF 9 metamodels into individual domains
– business, applications, etc. Extensibility was a key issue – e.g., can the
TOGAF metamodel potentially be mappable to other frameworks in the future (even if there
is no mapping currently)?
There was a discussion of Performance Reference Models and the need to extend the
“-ilities” into the other domains (business, etc.) besides technology.
Following the presentation there was a discussion on tools. Besides the well-known leading tools in the architecture space there are now tools (such as Eclipse) based
on open source standards that could possibly provide a base for tooling in which to
instantiate TOGAF 9 metamodels. One possible scenario is for a user to download Eclipse,
get the TOGAF metamodels from The Open Group, and create a workbench. Vendors could
then differentiate themselves in the market by what they added to that tool base. It was
agreed that this suggestion required further study.
TOGAF in the Academic Arena
Mike Lambert, Fellow of The Open Group, led this discussion.
Mike is now a Lecturer at Reading University and teaches TOGAF as part of his
curriculum. He put forward a proposal for a separate Academic Certification for
TOGAF 8,
explaining that he was requesting the Forum's endorsement for the principle involved at
this time, and that he would develop a more formal proposal for formal approval for the
Dublin meeting.
The proposal was endorsed in principle by the meeting, and a working group was
established with volunteers from the members present to help shape the proposals for
Dublin. Mike undertook to validate any proposals with The Open Group Certification team
before presenting them.
TOGAF 9 Product Marketing
Graham Bird, The Open Group VP Marketing, led a discussion on plans for the effective
product marketing of TOGAF 9.
The Open Group's key market messages are now: Architecture,
Boundarylessness, and
Certification - ABC.
Many organizations around the world are using TOGAF 8, but it is essential to collate
a number of effective case studies of TOGAF 8. Architecture Forum members can help by
representing their organizations at other conferences and featuring The Open Group and
TOGAF.
One suggestion was that a TOGAF 9 Roll of Honor be established to recognize individuals
who have made a significant contribution to the development of TOGAF 9.
More volunteers were invited for the marketing working group that it
was agreed to
set up at the previous meeting, to help in the marketing of TOGAF 9.
Architecture Building Blocks
Bill Estrem of Metaplexity Associates presented the work that he and Ian McCall of IBM
were jointly leading on extending the Standards Information Base to a Building Blocks
Information Base, as a repository of information on architecture building blocks,
reference models, and architecture patterns.
It is not appropriate yet to identify specific work packages in this area.
TOGAF 8 Certification
Andy Thackrah of The Open Group presented to the Forum an review of the proposals to
move from a course to a web-based examination as the basis of TOGAF 8 CERTIFIED (individual
certification).
A straw poll of those present at the meeting indicated a strong preference for a
training course followed by an exam, with the option to be able to omit the course for
those who felt they did not require it. No-one favored retaining a course alone as the
Indicator of Compliance.
As part of these discussions, it was agreed by the Forum to endorse a recommended
resolution of a Problem Report by The Open Group Certification Authority to enable
existing TOGAF 8 CERTIFIED individuals to renew their certifications, rather than requiring
them to re-certify. This would not apply to Interim Certification, which would now
effectively be discontinued.
IT Architect Certification
Andreas Szakal of IBM presented to the Architecture Forum a status report on the
development of an IT Architect Profession program, on behalf of the program sponsors, HP
and IBM.
This was an important and exciting time for IT Architects. A lot of people were calling
themselves an IT Architect, and there was a need for a measure for use of the title of
Certified IT Architect. IBM and HP have large architect communities, backed up by programs
that allow evolution from Associate through Senior to Principal Architect. These programs
are not based on a test, but on an evaluation of leadership skills and architecting
experience.
The proposed program of The Open Group had been documented in a White Paper at New
Orleans, a revised version of which had recently been made public. Since then the sponsors
had been meeting as a Board-level team, to define the policy and criteria documents for
the program.
This was not simply a certification program but a framework for accreditation and
certification, which involved setting up an accredited framework for IT Architect evaluating, and then establishing the criteria for evaluating
individual IT
Architects, so that architects in accredited organizations could be recognized as having
equivalent skills.
There would be two types of certification: direct (certified by The Open Group) and
indirect (certified through a third party – any accredited institution).
The program would recognize areas of architecture specialization – disciplines,
such as Enterprise Architecture, Applications Architecture, Information Architecture, and
Infrastructure Architecture. This was distinct from specialization in a particular
technology area. The Forum was invited to develop the definitions of architectural
disciplines within the program, and the Forum agreed to consider this request.
TOGAF/DODAF Harmonization
Rolf Siegers of Raytheon gave a status report on the work to harmonize TOGAF and DODAF,
with leading experts from both fields seeking to establish the synergy and integration
areas between the two frameworks.
On Friday January 28, Rolf led a project meeting which progressed the work still
further.
Collaboration with the Security Forum
David Jackson of IBM, the US Vice-Chair of the Architecture Forum, reported back on a
meeting that he had held with the Security Forum.
David is an IBM Certified IT Architect with a Security discipline, and although most of
his work in The Open Group is with the Architecture Forum, he has a keen interest in
Security Architecture.
When IT Architects go through TOGAF, they typically seek to answer one fundamental
question: What do you want this system to do? When a Security Architect engages,
s/he seeks to answer the fundamental question: What do you NOT want this system to do?
TOGAF currently lacks any security-specific guidance and information about security. A
proposal was made to the Security Forum to look at all the phases and steps of the
ADM,
and, with the help of the Security Forum, to publish a White Paper providing all the
guidance on information that needed to be collected in order to create the Security View
of the architecture. In due course this could be incorporated into TOGAF, if appropriate.
A presentation on this proposal will be given at the upcoming Dublin Architecture
Practitioners' Conference.
The Forum endorsed the proposal, and it was agreed that if possible the approach should
be generalized to illustrate how to extend the ADM for any specific domain such as
manageability, identity management, etc.
Collaboration with OMG and the Integration Consortium
David Jackson of IBM is leading the Architecture Forum's involvement in this work, with
Ed Harrison of Data Access Technologies (a member of both The Open Group Architecture
Forum and OMG) acting as the chair of the joint group.
On Thursday January 27 David Jackson of IBM gave a detailed presentation on the joint
initiative with the OMG and the Integration Consortium, including an overview of
MDA.
David also led a planning workshop on this topic on Friday January 28, which
articulated in detail the Architecture Forum's objectives from the collaboration.
On Saturday January 29 there was a Joint Workshop between The Open Group, OMG, and the
Integration Consortium, at the Burlingame Hyatt (OMG's venue for its member conference the
following week). Ed Harrington chaired the joint workshop.
David Jackson presented the results of the preceding day's workshop to the joint
meeting, and the meeting received further inputs from Pete Rivett, CTO of Adaptive
Systems, representing the OMG, and Bill Estrem of Metaplexity Associates.
David led a final session of the day in which a number of possible next steps
were identified and prioritized.
Overall, it was a highly fruitful and successful week.
