An Enterprise Engineering based Examination of
TOGAF


IBM – infrastructure
Business Connexion – Venue





08:30 Introduction Louw Labuschagne
08:45 Prof Jan Hoogenvorst
09:30 Discussion – Paul van der Merwe
comments from AOGEA perspective
10:00 Comments from Peter Waugh –
practitioner perspective
09:50 Question session



Organisational advisor and
management consultant
Associate Professor Technical
University Lisbon, Center for
Organizational Design and
Engineering
Guest Lecturer University of
Antwerp (including the University
of Antwerp Management School),
Delft University of Technology,
The Government Information
Management Academy, and
TiasNimbas Business School
Tilburg



Organisational advisor and
management consultant
Teaches about Enterprise
Governance and Enterprise
Engineering in Master-programs at
several universities
Worked at KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines in various executive
management functions and was
responsible for Aircraft Systems
Engineering, Aircraft Components
Maintenance, Aircraft Maintenance,
Flight Crew Training, and
Corporate Information Technology
Strategy Development and
Implementation



Organisational advisor and
management consultant
Teaches about Enterprise
Governance and Enterprise
Engineering in Master-programs at
several universities
Worked at KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines in various executive
management functions and was
responsible for Aircraft Systems
Engineering, Aircraft Components
Maintenance, Aircraft Maintenance,
Flight Crew Training, and
Corporate Information Technology
Strategy Development and
Implementation
Integrated and unified design of enterprises is a prime area of
interest. Currently, this area of interest extends towards the
emerging discipline of Enterprise Engineering.
Traditional management thinking about enterprises, whereby
attention for coherent consistent enterprise design is absent, is
considered the root cause for the failures of the majority of
enterprise strategic (IT) initiatives. Only if the governance of
enterprises is adequate, the theory and associated methodology
of Enterprise Engineering can be fruitfully applied.
Enterprise Governance – which includes Corporate Governance
and IT Governance – represents another major area of interest.
His recent book Enterprise Governance and Enterprise
Engineering (Springer 2009) addresses these two major themes
and advocates:
 Unified rather than fragmented treatment of corporate, IT and
enterprise governance
 Organismic (competence-based) rather than mechanistic
(control-based) approach to governance
 Design focus rather than a control focus for avoiding
strategic failures




Electrical Engineering (B.Sc) at
the ‘INHolland’ University of
Applied Science (Cum Laude)
Military service: Communication
Officer in the Royal Dutch Air
force
Electrical Engineering (M.Sc) at
the Delft University of
Technology (Cum Laude)
Dissertation (PhD) in Work and
Organizational Psychology at the
Amsterdam Free University
Academic publications on:




Maintenance
Organisational Theory
Information Theory and
Organisation
Enterprise, IT and Corporate
Governance – Enterprise
Engineering, Enterprise and IT
Architecture



TOGAF manifests a typical 'mechanistic'
planning and control perspective, the same as
the IT governance institute expresses. It
seems to adhere to the naive notion of
'strategic planning‘
What system type TOGAF is concerned with.
Is it IT or the enterprise itself?
Does TOGAF offer a perspective that allows a
holistic, unified and integrated system (IT and
enterprise) design?



The lack of an adequate system view and
design perspective is also manifest in the
notion of architecture. For instance, it is
unclear what is meant by enterprise
architecture
Architecture is mostly used in a descriptive
sense, not in a normative, prescriptive sense
(see learning objectives of Chaper 4)
TOGAF does not adequately (conceptually)
separate design and implementation




Inconsistent and unclear definitions of
concepts (often including so much that
definitions virtually become meaningless)
No clear distinction between architecturing
and designing
No formal system perspective, hence, no
formal distinction between system function
and construction
No formal theory and associated
methodology for enterprise design.


Enterprise as a heterogeneous system comprised of
three homogeneous systems: business, intellect
and documented organisation vs. business,
organisation, information, technology – why the
change? I&D not always recognisable in
organisations. Debate in terms of essential and
infological.
How do these domains relate to the TOGAF BDAT
domains? You need to say far more about an
enterprise than just BDAT. These domains are
relevant but not sufficient. Should be positioned in
a functional or design perspective.

TOGAF is a planning tool that guide the
construction of the underlying mechanisms to
the business. The framework view is that of
planning and the systems view is using the plans
to come up with the constructs.
Which process gives you the indication what the
mechanism is? If TOGAF is a planning tool
(operationalising already made choices) there is a
lack of clarity on the role of TOGAF. Designing is
getting to something that can be build.
Designing is a creative process that is
fundamentally different from planning.




Mechanistic vs. Organismic
TOGAF – IT or the Enterprise?
Descriptive vs. Normative architecture
Separation between design and
implementation
Mechanistic





appropriate to conditions of relative
stability
highly structured, members have
well-defined, formal job
descriptions/roles, and precise
positions vis a vis others
direction is from the top - down
through the hierarchy.
Communication is similarly vertical
the organisation insists on loyalty
and conformity from members to
each other, to managers and to the
organisation itself in relation to
policies and methods
members need sufficient functionary
ability to operate within
organisational constraints
Source: T. Burns and G M Stalker ,The Management of Innovation, 1961
Organismic





suitable for unstable, turbulent and
changing conditions
re-shape itself to address new
problems and tackle unforeseen
contingencies
a fluid organisational design is
adopted which facilitates flexibility,
adaptation, job redefinition
departments, sections and teams are
formed and reformed.
Communication is lateral as well as
vertical - with emphasis on a
network rather than a hierarchy
organisational members are
personally and actively commitment
to it beyond what is basically
operationally or functionally
necessary.



What is the general organisation type that
your are exposed to in your day-to-day
work?
Is TOGAF more suited for Mechanistic or
Organismic organisations?
How should TOGAF be adapted to address
both types of cultures?





Is TOGAF addressing the IT or Enterprise
scope?
What is the difference between IT and
Enterprise Architecture?
What should TOGAF address?
Is Business Architecture relevant as a domain
for IT Architecture?
Should TOGAF address Enterprise or IT
architecture?


Is TOGAF’s primary focus on descriptive or
normative architecture?
What is required in terms of normative
architecture?



Is there a clear distinction between design
and implementation in the ADM?
Is the TOGAF meta-model accommodating
design and implementation?
Is it required to have a clear separation
between design and implementation?





I implement systems
Architecture enables strategy
Driver – Business: “you are architects you are
smoking your socks”
Start to apply a behavioural architecture
Is it normative or descriptive? Design
guidance principles required (include the
actions to realise the principle in the principle
definition) – key to link architecture principles
to strategic intentions



How do you do that?
Agree with behavioural aspects but it is driven by
the context in which people operate. How do you
make sure that the design is consistent with the
behaviour that you want? Observing the
enterprise as a system in its totality from a
normative architecture standpoint you get to a
gully coherent and integrated organisation.
Functional context that all activities happen – if
this is the baseline (industry reference
frameworks) how do you apply the application




Do you feel IRF are sufficient?
It does give context. Apply IFR to domains.
Bottom up within the context of an IFR with
transactional and functional behaviour
aligned to strategic intents.
Peter will write something up that can be
published.