Welcome to GTRA

One of the greatest innovations in TOGAF 9 is the addition of a Content Framework, which is tied both to a new explicit Metamodel and to the well proven Architecture Development Method (ADM). Federal TOGAF users already had considerable power by linking the ADM to the Reference Models of the FEA. Now they will be able to more easily and flexibly create metamodels. They will also be able to tie artifacts defined in the Content Framework to their own metamodels and to the phases of the ADM as they populate their versions of the five Reference Models of the FEA. Because the Metamodel is modular, it is very suitable for assisting architects to define and model within segments.

The TOGAF Content Framework unambiguously (finally) defines deliverables, artifacts and building blocks, and how they relate to each other. I won’t present these definitions here, but this diagram should give some hints. Deliverables are containers for artifacts, which describe building blocks.

Let’s digress for a moment to the Metamodel, which will help us understand the final presentation of the content framework. The highest level representation of the Metamodel is closely related to the ADM. You’ll see this if you look at these two diagrams together.

The visual conceptulization of segments in TOGAF 9 (below) helps me see how segments fit into the overall EA effort of an agency or department. 

The cube represents the whole of EA. The top level is a strategic overview of the EA, including all subject matter and through the full planning horizon - but at the shallowest level of detail. The Segment level looks at chunks of subject matter at a high level of granularity. It also looks at 'as is', 'to be' and 'transtional' states for the segment. All of this is done at a deeper level of detail than the strategic architecture. The lowest level is that of Capability. It is closely tied to the notion of Capability Based Planning, already in use by agencies such as FEMA. Subject matter within segments is described here, so granularity is lower. 'As is', 'to be' and 'transitional' states are described. The level of detail is much more granular.

I worked in Federal Student Loans a couple years back. The Mission Core Segment we worked with was 'Loans'. The functional areas 'Common Origination and Disbursement'and 'Common Services for Borrowers' would probably map to Capabilities in the TOGAF model.

From a process point of view, I think the model we've just looked at gives us another perspective both on the TOGAF Architectural Development Method (ADM) and FSAM. In the next diagrram we can see how a first high level, strategic sweep of the agency using an ADM cycle - spawns several cycles describing Segments. Although these Segment cycles are shown in the diagram as being ADM cycles, they could just as well be FSAM cycles. These FSAM cycles could be modified as I suggested in my last post to take maximum use of the accumulated experince of TOGAF. The Segment cycles then spawn Capability cycles, now using the ADM again.

My overall thinking on the use of these concepts is that we need to consider the ADM for both that Strategic sweep (a cycle which few agencies ever get around to doing) and for the architecting of Capabilities, whether these be ones discovered  during the Segment definition, or are 'low hanging fruit' that are described to meet specific stakeholder concerns. Describing Segments themselves can be done using FSAM, tailored with TOGAF specifics.

What are your thoughts? Is this a useful way of looking at identifying Segments and Capabilities? How are you doing it now?