TOGAF Adaption for Small and MediumEnterprises

Rebekka Alm and Matthias Wissotzki

The University of Rostock, Institute of Computer Science, Chair of BusinessInformation Systems, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18059 Rostock, Germany

{rebekka.alm, matthias.wissotzki}@uni-rostock.de

Abstract. Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) includes theplanning, management, control and improvement of enterprise architec-ture. The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is the bestknown and most trusted enterprise architecture standard used to im-prove the operational e�ciency. It brings many benefits, but is also asso-ciated with costs. While the applicability to large enterprises is beyondquestion, the application in small and medium enterprises (SME) in con-sideration of costs and benefits is controversial. Scientific literature givesno satisfactory recommendation to SME. A survey with TOGAF expe-rienced users was performed to get a better understanding of the mostimportant parts of the framework and the possibility of adapting TO-GAF to the requirements of SME.

Keywords: TOGAF, Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM), smalland medium enterprises (SME)

1 Introduction

Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) includes the planning, manage-ment, control and improvement of enterprise architecture [5, 12]. The OpenGroup Architecture Framework (TOGAF1) is the best known and most trustedenterprise architecture standard [10]. It includes a recognized methodology anda framework for enterprise architecture. TOGAF is used by leading companiesworldwide in order to improve the operational e�ciency2.

There are four architecture layers in EAM that can be distinguished, whichare referred to in the context of TOGAF as business architecture, data architec-ture, application architecture and technology architecture. The development ofthese four interconnected architecture layers is fully supported by TOGAF. Theframework is divided into seven parts as shown in Fig. 1.

The Architecture Development Method (ADM) is the core of TOGAF asshown in Fig. 1. The ADM is illustrated not only centered, but is connected

1http://www.togaf.info/

2 An overview of the institutions and companies that use TOGAF: http://www3.opengroup.org/togaf/users-by-market-sector

Fig. 1. TOGAF Content Overview [9]

to all the other parts. It describes the process of developing and managing theenterprise architecture life cycle.

The development process is divided into eight stages. It is triggered by thepreparation phase and monitored by the requirements management. The archi-tectural requirements management is a continuous phase, ensuring requirementschanges are met through appropriate governance processes and are consideredin all other phases. Additionally all phases are divided into steps and each phasecontains well-defined inputs and outputs, which are processed or generated bythese steps. According to the standard document the numbering of the phasesis not fixed, but rather exemplary. The architect should change the order inconsideration of the requirements of the company, existing repositories and thetools used [9].

The large size and complexity of such a framework makes it more di�cult tohandle for the user [6]. This problem is well known and often cited as generalizedreason why a framework driven EAM is not profitable for SME. However, theproblem itself is barely addressed. The TOGAF documentation refers to theadaptability of the framework [9]. Several reasons for adaption are mentioned,one being the need for a customized, possibly reduced form of the framework forSME. However, no indication is given what parts should be reduced in this case.

There are a variety of reasons for implementing EAM, such as summarizedby Weinberger [15]:

– Supports delivery of the business strategy– E↵ective management and exploitation of information is key to business

sucess and competitive advantage– Manage stakeholder concerns that needed to be addressed by IT systems– Manage complexity and changes to business/IT– Enables the right balance between IT e�ciency and business innovation– Improvement of transparency and manage risks– Optimizes the (fragmented) legacy processes (manual and automated) to an

integrated environment

The applicability to large enterprises is beyond question, as The Open Group’sown website lists some familiar names3. Yet there is no su�cient exploration onwhether the implementation of TOGAF in SME could be reasonable.

To answer this question two research approaches were used that will be intro-duced in Sect. 2. The approach and results of the literature analysis are describedin Sect. 3. Here the problem of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) inSME is explained and pros and cons of TOGAF are compared. Since the prob-lem has not been addressed satisfactorily by the literature sources, a survey wasperformed. The contents and results of the survey are presented in Sect. 4 andlimitations are assessed in Sect. 5.

2 Research Approach

The first research approach used by this paper is a methodological review of re-search results. The approach aims to be transparent, conclusive, and repeatablefor the audience. The purpose of this paper is to summarize knowledge on TO-GAF and to identify its applicability for SME. We have conducted a systematicliterature review based on the guidelines of Kitchenham et al. [13]:

1. Formulation of the research questions to define the important topics andrelevant research fields.

2. Identification of literature sources covering TOGAF and EAM3. Selection of papers for inclusion in the analysis4. Data extraction from selected papers5. Presentation of results6. Interpretation of results

Results of the literature review are summarized in Sect. 3. A preliminaryoverview has shown a limited amount of existing scientific papers with relevanceto this topic, as well as limited availability and access to the few sources weidentified. Therefore we decided to validate our conclusions through a survey.

A survey is defined in the following way [8]:

– The purpose of a survey is to produce statistics, that is, quantitative ornumerical descriptions of some aspects of the study population.

3http://www3.opengroup.org/togaf/users-by-market-sector

– The main way of collecting information is by asking questions; their answersconstitute the data to be analyzed.

– Generally information is to be collected from only a fraction of the popula-tion, that is a sample, rather than from every member of the population.

Relevant research questions were identified through the literature review. Astarget population a sample of TOGAF certified experienced users was chosen.The survey was performed web-based4. Approach and results are represented inSect. 4.

3 State of the Art

This chapter provides an overview of the approach in the search for literatureon the subject of TOGAF in SME. The e↵ort associated with the developmentof an enterprise architecture by applying TOGAF should produce appropriatebenefits. SME do not have the same means such as large companies and applyingEAM can result in noteworthy costs. It should be answered, what changes tothe approach could significantly reduce the e↵ort for SME. It would be helpfulto analyze case studies of small and medium enterprises, which successfully useTOGAF or had reason to cancel a planned deployment. The list of publications5

on The Open Group website contains some case studies. These, however, referto global players, therefore large companies. For the systematic literature reviewthere were used the academic search engines Springerlink and Bielefeld AcademicSearch Engine (BASE). Due to the lack of relevant results the general searchengine Google was used as well.

Springerlink The advanced search in full text for “TOGAF” returned 348documents. The limitation of the search on title and abstract reduced thenumber to 22 hits. From this list only six titles were available from thenetwork of the University of Rostock [1–4, 7, 14]. These articles were notapplicable to the context of SME.

Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) The default search with thekeyword “TOGAF” in BASE provided a set of 62 articles. This search yieldedno relevant results, since none of the articles were based on small and mediumenterprises, or if so, only in an indirect way.

Google The search on Google Scholar6 was also discouraging. Following key-words were used in the search: “TOGAF experiences”, “TOGAF in SME”,“TOGAF publication”, “TOGAF small medium business” and “TOGAF”.This search yielded few relevant new results. To achieve further referencelitererature it was sought for general “EAM in SME”. The main result ofthis search was the book by Keuntje and Barkow [11], in which the relevanceof EAM for SME is analyzed. Since the literature results on Google Scholar

4 LimeSurvey: http://www.limesurvey.org/de5https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/jsp/publications/PublicationsFree.jsp

6http://scholar.google.de/

were still not satisfactory, the same approach was repeated for Google’s gen-eral search engine. Result of this search were some interesting articles withinstructions for use and adaptation of TOGAF in general and SME in par-ticular, however, no scientific publications.

Results. Keuntje and Barkow investigate in [11] the relevance of EAM for themiddle class and analyze it regarding two drivers for EAM they identified:

1. To support the systematic, holistic alignment of IT activities to current andfuture business requirements

2. Management of complexity of the application landscape and associated in-frastructure

The first point is for any company of interest, for SME as for large companiesalike. Critically is the question of the need for specific methods, models or possi-bly software solutions to implement. Keuntje and Barkow refer to the possibilityand the need to adapt, to find a balanced compromise between semantics andcompleteness of the result with a justifiable e↵ort. The second point that focusseson the complexity of the company is strongly motivated by the two authors. Inlarge companies high complexity is already given by the variety and heterogene-ity of the applications used. Critically, however, be noted that the complexityin this case would likely be managed instead of actually mastered. In (growing)SME “chaos” and complexity can be prevented with little e↵ort by early use ofEAM. The necessary changes are according to [11] implemented faster and withless e↵ort than in large companies. The assessment of the company situationcan be created within a short time and thus timely and accurate. Moreover, ina small company with a flat structure, all relevant employees are reached si-multaneously. Thus, an SME in the right circumstances and with the necessarymotivation can much more quickly achieve a high level of maturity. A key suc-cess factor in this context is the acceptance and cooperation of stakeholders [15].The corporate culture must be established and demonstrated by the ExecutiveBoard.

To assess the relevance of EAM for SME Keuntje and Barkow prepared achecklist that includes the following areas: documentation, e�ciency and securityof the IT organization, competitive importance of IT, environment and marketdynamics of the development of the company. The checklist is based on theextend of the dynamic of the environment in which the company is located. Isthe company in a near optimal state without pressure to change, the benefits ofEAM can indeed be questioned. Otherwise EAM is recommended, regardless ofthe size of the company. The choice of a concrete EAM approach is left to thereader.

Dube and Dixit [6] compare di↵erent EAM approaches and evaluate themaccording to criteria in three areas: “Higher Order Goals”, “non-funcional re-quirements” and “Inputs and Outcomes”. TOGAF is winner of every categoryand receives above-average ratings for all criteria.

In summary it can be said that the issue of the applicability of TOGAFfor SME is not considered su�ciently in the literature. However, the hypothesis

can be deduced that TOGAF is certainly of interest for some SME. EAM isparticularly advisable if the SME is in a dynamic environment, or in growthand if a longer “lifetime” of the company is aimed at. To reduce the cost andcomplexity of the framework di↵erent measures can be taken. This measuresare regrettably not clarified. According to the TOGAF documentation [9] allparts of the framework act together as a whole, yet it is still possible within acompany to implement only part of it. In the introduction of the documentationit is even explicitly recommended to focus on certain components and to classifyother for later viewing when companies use TOGAF for the first time. A specificrecommendation on which components to focus is lacking so far.

4 SME Survey Results

The survey was designed to compensate the unsatisfactory results of the litera-ture review. The questions aim to identify the main components of the frame-work, and in particular the TOGAF Architecture Development Method as thecore of the framework. This, and an open question at the end of the survey wasdesigned to answer which parts of TOGAF are the most valuable assets and canbe suggested to small and medium enterprises.

The survey results are to answer the following research questions:

– RQ1: Which components of TOGAF are particularly useful?– RQ2: What phases of the ADM are particularly useful?– RQ3: What steps in the respective phases are particularly useful?– RQ4: Does it make sense to apply TOGAF to small and medium enterprises?

Respondents. Survey participants were acquired in two ways. First, certifiedTOGAF users7 were asked by mail to participate. Furthermore, the survey waspublished in an international TOGAF user group on XING. The survey wasanswered 53 times in total. The return rate was 10%. Most participants wereconsultants (43%), followed by modelers and architects (25%). The respondentscan be assumed to be experienced with TOGAF. More than a third (42%) statedto have at least 5 years experience with TOGAF, almost a third (32%) had 3-4years experience. Among the remaining responses, most participants have 2 yearsexperience (17%) and only 8% of the participants have 0 or 1 year experiencewith TOGAF.

Survey Contents. The survey was divided into four parts. The first part queriedfor general data about the person and the company. In the second part theparticipants were challenged to select five phases of ADM they would run ifthey could only perform five of the ten ADM phases. This type of questioningwas used to identify key components of TOGAF. The answer to this question

7 TOGAF Directory of Certified People: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf9/cert/cert_archlist-short.tpl

conditioned which phase were displayed to the participant in the following sub-questions. In addition, the participants were requested to evaluate the sevenTOGAF components regarding their usefulness. There was no neutral responseoption available, so participants were forced to specify a tendency to useful ornot useful. The third part is similar in design to the second part, the contentdepended on the responses from the second part: The participant received allthe steps of the selected phase, and had to choose which steps to perform, if hecould only carry out half of the steps. At last the participants were asked anopen question querying about the applicability of TOGAF in SME:

“Do you believe TOGAF should/could be applied in small to mediumenterprises? Please answer and give reasons for your opinion.”

RQ1: Which Components of TOGAF are Particularly Useful? Participants werechallenged to rate the 7 components each on a scale from “very useful”, “useful”to “occasionally useful” and “not useful”. In Fig. 2 the answers were summarizedto be “useful“ and “not useful”. For this purpose the following formula wasprepared:

percentage

useful

=count

veryuseful

⇤ 1 + count

useful

⇤ 0, 5count

total

(1)

An equivalent formula was used for the non-useful answers.

Fig. 2. Usefulness of TOGAF components

Figure 2 clearly shows that the ADM and its guidelines are considered themost important component of TOGAF. This confirms the approach to ask de-tailed questions about ADM.

RQ2: What Phases of the ADM are Particularly Useful? To identify the “mostuseful” or main phases, the question was asked, what phases the respondent

would perform if he could run only 5 of the 10 phases. The phases of businessarchitecture (83%), and Architecture Vision and Information System Architec-ture with each 70% were the most voted phases. It should be noted that 100%would have been achieved if each participant had executed the respective phase.The diagram in Fig. 3 shows the results in more detail.

Fig. 3. The most useful ADM phases

RQ3: What Steps in the Respective Phases are Particularly Useful? Anotherresult of the survey was an assessment of the participants about the importanceof each step of each phase. We will discuss the similarities and striking di↵erenceswe identified. Due to the high degree of detail and scope needed for an expressivepresentation, the specific results for each phase shall be omitted. Exemplary thespecific results for the most useful8 phase B (Business Architecture) will bepresented. Phase B was initially chosen by 44 of the 53 participants as one ofthe most useful phases. The answers of the respondents are visualized in Fig. 4.

The steps “Develop Target Business Architecture” (100% as a baseline), “De-velop Baseline Business Architecture” (85%) and “Perform Gap Analysis” (81%)are leading. Interestingly, the step “Conduct Stakeholder Review” (52%) is ashort distance before any further steps. The same step in the phases C & D (In-formation System Architecture & Technology Architecture), only got 27% and22% of the votes. Therefore, the step seems to be of particular importance inphase B.

8 RQ2: What phases of the ADM are particularly useful?

Fig. 4. Most important steps for TOGAF phase B

Another striking di↵erence between the phases can be determined for thesteps regarding confirmation. The confirmation takes a central role in the Archi-tecture Vision. The particular step is ”Confirm and Elaborate Business Goals,Business Drivers, and Constraints”. 54% of the participants think this step tobe of particular importance. This value is significantly higher than the similarsteps of the other phases. This shows the importance of the approval of businessobjectives.

The step of “Scoping” showed to be particularly important in di↵erent phases.Both in the Preliminary phase and in the Architecture Vision, the participantsassociated this step with a particularly high importance (67% and 76%) .

RQ4: Does it Make Sense to Apply TOGAF to Small and Medium Enterprises?The majority of participants answered “Yes” or “Yes, partially” (84 %). Thefollowing points were mentioned in the answers:

– SME should skip steps or implement them less detailed.– SME should minimize Documentation and Tracking Steps.– TOGAF is suitable for medium-sized companies, but not suitable for small

businesses.– The common language and the vocabulary by TOGAF is useful for any

company.– TOGAF is a scalable framework.– Depending on the use case, the framework needs to be adjusted di↵erently.– At least the ADM can be useful in SME.– TOGAF is useful for all companies in which much change occurs, and not

useful in static businesses regardless of size.

– It was repeatedly mentioned that the size of the company is not the deter-mining factor for the application of TOGAF.

– The desire for a TOGAF framework ”Lite” with reduced overhead for SMEhas been mentioned several times.

– One participant believed that many users confuse TOGAF with a method,rather than seeing it as customizable framework.

– It is recommended that adjustment of TOGAF was to be carried out withassistance of an external expert with many years experience.

Participants answering “No”, mentioned the following reasons:

– TOGAF is too complex and abstract.– TOGAF creates too much overhead.– It is questionable whether using TOGAF would benefit the company.

The negative foundations seem very generalizing, so it can be assumed thatthe positive responses are more deliberate and accurate.

Summary. The research questions were largely answered by the survey results.The first question regarding the most helpful components of TOGAF could con-firm existing assumptions. It turned out that the ADM is especially useful whilethe reference models are less useful (Fig. 2). This seems logical and is supportedby a high number of participants. The second question was about the most im-portant phases in TOGAF. The results are satisfactory and can also be readdirectly from the survey results (Fig. 3). For the third research question con-cerning the steps of each phase, the most frequently selected steps were rated asmost important.

For the fourth research question we collected evidence in form of opinionsof experienced users. A complete answer to the question is missing, however,because not only employees of SME were registered as participants for the survey.

5 Limitations

The survey was approached open minded and the questions were formulatedneutral. More practical experience with TOGAF could have improved the survey.

The questions were deliberately chosen to challenge the experts, which TO-GAF phases and steps are most useful and correspondingly which phases couldbe paid less attention to reduce the e↵ort for SME. Some participants did havegreat objections to the notion of omitting phases, so they refused to participatein the survey. Another participant had di�culty answering the questions, sincethe steps in his view, can be selected generally valid, but only as a functionof the implemented project. This is in our view a legitimate criticism, but theproblem is di�cult to avoid in a survey.

As for the size of company, mostly employees of large organizations with 501or more employees have responded (64%). From medium-sized companies with11 to 500 employees were 23% of the responses. Only 13% of the participants

were from small businesses with 1 to 10 employees. Based on the sales 27%of the participants can be described as small (2 million euros), an additional18% of the organizations can be classified as a medium on account of havinga turnover of 2 to 50 million euros. The majority (55%) of the the companiescan be described in terms of sales as large. It is to be noted that many of theparticipants were consultants, and thus possibly only the consulting firm was anSME, but TOGAF is actually applied in a large company. Unfortunately, thedesign of the survey did not allow to make a distinction here.

6 Conclusion and Outlook

This paper deals with the issue of the applicability of TOGAF in small andmedium enterprises. For this purpose we introduced the framework and analyzedexisting literature reports. The subject of TOGAF in SME is largely undocu-mented and opinions on the topic vary widely. The sweeping opinion seems to bethat EAM in SME will bring little benefit while causing excessive costs. Selectedliterature as well as the survey show, however, that TOGAF experts and userssee great potential in applying EAM (especially TOGAF) in SME. We agreewith the EAM experts who succeed by arguments. The business environment isincreasingly dynamic and competitive pressure is increasing. A company cannota↵ord to pay the price of the consequences of lack of EAM. The measures toreduce the cost and complexity of the application of TOGAF were enumeratedin this work, the benefits of TOGAF were outlined as well.

We tried to compensate the lack of available literature on the subject bya survey. The high response rate and the high level of professional knowledgeof the participants’ responses su�ciently confirmed our hypothesis that EAMor TOGAF is also of interest to SME. Furthermore, we have established thatcost reduction by the omission of complete stages is to be applied with caution.Advisable is instead to edit the di↵erent phases in a large scale. The weightingof the phases is in this regard an important result of the survey and may serveas a guide for SME, which phases should be edited to what extent. But this onlyserves as a base. The adjustments of the framework must be done individuallyaccording to the nature and objectives of the company. This issue should beexplored further based on the findings of the survey.

References

1. Colin Atkinson. Orthographic software modelling: a novel approach to view-basedsoftware engineering. In Proceedings of the 6th European conference on ModellingFoundations and Applications, ECMFA’10, pages 1–1, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010.Springer-Verlag.

2. Pavel Balabko and Alain Wegmann. Systemic classification of concern-based designmethods in the context of enterprise architecture. Information Systems Frontiers,8(2):115–131, February 2006.

3. Adam Czarnecki and Cezary Orlowski. Ontology as a tool for the it managementstandards support. In KES-AMSTA (2)’10, pages 330–339, 2010.

4. Adam Czarnecki and Cezary Orlowski. It business standards as an ontology do-main. In Piotr Jedrzejowicz, Ngoc Thanh Nguyen, and Kiem Hoang, editors, ICCCI(1), volume 6922 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 582–591. Springer,2011.

5. G. Dern. Management von it-architekturen. Management von IT-Architekturen:Leitlinien fur die Ausrichtung, Planung und Gestaltung von Informationssystemen,ISBN 978-3-8348-0718-2. Vieweg+ Teubner Verlag— GWV Fachverlage GmbH,Wiesbaden, 2009, 1, 2009.

6. Mahesh R. Dube and Shantanu K. Dixit. Comprehensive measurement frameworkfor enterprise architectures. CoRR, abs/1109.1891, 2011.

7. W. Engelsman and R. J. Wieringa. Goal-oriented requirements engineering andenterprise architecture: Two case studies and some lessons learned. In RequirementsEngineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2012), Essen, Germany,volume 7195 of Lecture notes in computer science, pages 306–320, London, March2012. Springer Verlag.

8. J. Floyd J. Fowler. Survey Research Methods. Applied Social Research Methods.SAGE Publications, 2001.

9. The Open Group. Open group standard - togaf version 9.1. Web:http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/.

10. The Open Group. An introduction to togaf version 9.1. Web:http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/, Dezember 2011.

11. Jan H. Keuntje and Reinhard Barkow. Enterprise Architecture Management inder Praxis: Wandel, Komplexitat und IT-Kosten im Unternehmen beherrschen.Symposion Publishing GmbH, 2010.

12. S.H. Kaisler, F. Armour, and M. Valivullah. Enterprise architecting: Critical prob-lems. In System Sciences, 2005. HICSS ’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on, page 224b, Januar 2005.

13. B.A. Kitchenham, S.L. Pfleeger, L.M. Pickard, P.W. Jones, D.C. Hoaglin,K. El Emam, and J. Rosenberg. Preliminary guidelines for empirical research insoftware engineering. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 28(8):721–734,2002.

14. P. van Bommel, S. Hoppenbrouwers, H. Proper, and Th van der Weide. Givingmeaning to enterprise architectures: Architecture principles with orm and orc onthe move to meaningful internet systems 2006: Otm 2006 workshops. volume 4278of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, chapter 17, pages 1138–1147. Springer Berlin/ Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.

15. Danny Weinberger. ...und am anfang steht die geschaftsanforderung, oder? OB-JEKTspektrum, EAM, 2010.