Pros and Cons of mixing TOGAF and Archimate?

[timoc]

At the end of the day I think you'll find that TOGAF has limits in the real world too, the biggest show stopper is the lack of a notation.

Well the biggest show stopper is it creates a business for talking about doing IT, when most businesses want people just to get on and support the business that earns the revenue :-)

In my opinion, TOGAF adoption is usually taken up by people who see their IT (and its evolution) as critical to generating revenue and supporting business functions. Archimate is best used to communicate the need (to invest in IT changes) with those people in the organization who do not

[adepreter]

Indeed it is the same problem everywhere.
http://www.labnaf.one/ln-content/edu/EDU%2020%20Challenges.pdf

An alternative is having one single language that makes sense i.e.
- that is based on precise systems semantics
http://www.labnaf.one/guidance/index.html?guid=6A67F237-E1E4-41a2-BF3E-F922E1B18FF8

- and that is designed to support the complete process of driving transformations (the TOGAF ADM is a process for driving one single change)
http://www.labnaf.one/guidance/index.html?guid=1FC5C565-4DA7-4e0c-AD58-134E8BEC0CA5

For more information please contact Sparx Europe.

[Modesto Vega]

At the end of the day I think you'll find that TOGAF has limits in the real world too, the biggest show stopper is the lack of a notation.

Well the biggest show stopper is it creates a business for talking about doing IT, when most businesses want people just to get on and support the business that earns the revenue :-)

Couldn’t say it better. Glassboy is spot on here.

Again tend to disagree regarding information loss in translation.

Modelling languages have the same weaknesses and strengths as natural languages. With natural languages, lots of information is lost in translation and you need translators to ensure minimum loss of information and absence of conflict, conflict covers anything from open warfare to brawls. Of course, you only know this if you have the fortune or misfortune of knowing more than once natural language.

The only advantage that modelling languages have over natural languages is that if you know what to express I can choose an appropriate modelling language for it. This is not so easily done with natural languages.

Although I like the rigour of ArchiMate, I am not sure it would be my first choice because of the size of the vocabulary and its grammar. ArchiMate, in my opinion, requires a specialist, most organisations do not have one and often do not hire one when they decide to use ArchiMate.

[qwerty]

Although I like the rigour of ArchiMate, I am not sure it would be my first choice because of the size of the vocabulary and its grammar. ArchiMate, in my opinion, requires a specialist, most organisations do not have one and often do not hire one when they decide to use ArchiMate.

Yep. That goes for any language. The "funniest" I've seen when hiring Indian consultants speaking English with German customers to model some business (they are probably not specialists for) in UML. Translating thoughts being stored in so many brains and not written down is how many industries work. All of a sudden some people get the idea to have that documented in some way. So they come up with a technical language. The problem: their business guys having that business knowledge don't speak the technical language. Only their own dialect which is sort of their mother language with technical idioms. It's a hell of work to translate that. And yes: the translators are they key persons. But which of them can you trust? Is the cloud in the business guys brain the same (or mostly matching) the one in the UML model?

q.

[Glassboy]

At the end of the day I think you'll find that TOGAF has limits in the real world too, the biggest show stopper is the lack of a notation.

Well the biggest show stopper is it creates a business for talking about doing IT, when most businesses want people just to get on and support the business that earns the revenue :-)

In my opinion, TOGAF adoption is usually taken up by people who see their IT (and its evolution) as critical to generating revenue and supporting business functions.

Yeah that's what they normally say :-)  A lot of talking and not much walking.

[timoc]

At the end of the day I think you'll find that TOGAF has limits in the real world too, the biggest show stopper is the lack of a notation.

Well the biggest show stopper is it creates a business for talking about doing IT, when most businesses want people just to get on and support the business that earns the revenue :-)

In my opinion, TOGAF adoption is usually taken up by people who see their IT (and its evolution) as critical to generating revenue and supporting business functions.

Yeah that's what they normally say :-)  A lot of talking and not much walking.

Yeh. its one thing to have a sponsor say "Lets do TOGAF!", it's another entirely to get an organizational to change. I call it organizational inertia (that it wants to continue in its existing state of rest or motion in current direction)

[Glassboy]

Yeh. its one thing to have a sponsor say "Lets do TOGAF!", it's another entirely to get an organizational to change. I call it organizational inertia (that it wants to continue in its existing state of rest or motion in current direction)

Yes there is organizational intertia, but there are also a lot of Enterprise Architects who are the poster children for the Peter Principal and very few Architecture group managers who are fully vested in change.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Yeh. it's one thing to have a sponsor say "Let's do TOGAF!", it's another entirely to get an organizational to change. I call it organizational inertia (that it wants to continue in its existing state of rest or motion in current direction)

Yes, there is organizational inertia, but there are also a lot of Enterprise Architects who are the poster children for the Peter Principal and very few Architecture group managers who are fully vested in change.

(my emphasis)  "In titulo, ergo sum"?

Paolo

[Glassboy]

Some would say I'm displaying my bias against a certain other profession.

[Modesto Vega]

Yeh. it's one thing to have a sponsor say "Let's do TOGAF!", it's another entirely to get an organizational to change. I call it organizational inertia (that it wants to continue in its existing state of rest or motion in current direction)

Yes, there is organizational inertia, but there are also a lot of Enterprise Architects who are the poster children for the Peter Principal and very few Architecture group managers who are fully vested in change.

(my emphasis)  "In titulo, ergo sum"?

Paolo

And a lot of enterprise architects must be doing/using the latest (....) - please fill the blanks - without first gaining mastery/proficiency. We used to call this “bleeding edge technology”, nowadays we seem to have gone beyond the “bleeding edge”. The “10,000 hour rule” is so often overlooked, proficiency is not a pill you buy over the counter and shallow.

Gladwell calculated that reaching the 10,000-Hour Rule is simply a matter of practicing a specific task and can be accomplished with 20 hours of work a week for 10 years.