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

MechanisticOrganismic  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  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. Source: T. Burns and G M Stalker,The Management of Innovation, 1961

 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.