INF4883 – 2022

Assignment number: 2

Assignment unique code: 629471

Student number: 48172413

Last name & Initials DURAND C

Statement of Originality
I certify that the intellectual content of this assignment is the product of my own work and that all
the assistance received in preparing this assignment and sources have been acknowledged.

INF4883 assignment 2
Abstract / Executive Overview
Developments in Enterprise Architecture (EA) have led to substantial thought, literature, and
standardisation on the subject. Today, there are several frameworks to choose from. Some are specifically
aimed at types of sectors or industries, while others take a generalised approach to EA.

The aim of EA is to ensure there is an effective and efficient drive toward ensuring that business and
Information Technology (IT) are aligned to realise business goals and objectives to a greater extent than
ever before. IT is and should be an enabler for business. The relationship between business and IT has
changed over time, where, earlier we saw a clear separation between the two with IT dictating to business
how systems are made available and used. Business had its processes outside of IT and used technology
only as a provider of back office services. Today, almost every aspect of business operations is managed by
digital information systems.

This paper looks at two Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAF) i.e. TOGAF and GWEA and aims to
compare them side by side, showing the similarities and differences.
Table of Contents
Abstract / Executive Overview........................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Part A ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Method for Comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks............................................................. 4

Part B.................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1. The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF).................................................................................. 5

2. South African Government Wide Enterprise Architecture (GWEA) .......................................................... 5

3. Comparison Overview................................................................................................................................ 6

4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 6

5. References ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Part A

1. Introduction
As previously stated, there are several architectural frameworks in use today. It would not be inconsistent
to find overlapping views across many of these frameworks. To provide a comparison between the chosen
frameworks in this paper TOGAF will be used as the reference and measure for comparison.

2. Method for Comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

TOGAF deals with 4 kinds of Architecture i.e., i.) The Business Architecture ii) The Data Architecture iii.) The
Application Architecture and iv.) The Technology Architecture. The Architecture Development Method
(ADM) is a key feature of the framework. It is essentially a list of processes that are tried and tested over
time and contributed to by the IT industry at large. Many industries and professionals take an active part in
the development of TOGAF. The ADM is divided into a number of phases, as listed below:

a. The Preliminary Phase – preparation and initiation

b. Phase A: Architecture Vision – scope definition and architecture vision

c. Phase B: Business Architecture – supports the vision

d. Phase C: Information Systems Architecture – developing information systems

e. Phase D: Technology Architecture – developing technology stacks

f. Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions – implementation planning

g. Phase F: Migration Planning – how to move from AS-IS to TO-BE

h. Phase G: Implementation Governance: implementation oversight

i. Phase H Architecture Change Management – managing change

j. Requirements Management: managing architecture requirements

These phases will be used in a table to identify where the frameworks match in terms of processes and
output.
Part B

1. The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)

TOGAF is a hands-on approach to EA, it is concerned with developing and using a set of reusable steps and
processes that have been created with real environment experiences and is guided by a systematic
approach resulting in predictable outcomes. TOGAF can be used on its own or with other standard
frameworks. It is not prescriptive and does not exclude outside influences to build on top of what works
best for an organization. TOGAF may also be used in part or in full. Enterprise architects using TOGAF are
encouraged to combine other influences to ensure a comprehensive approach to business and IT alignment
ensuring that information is directed to achieving all of business’ objectives.

2. South African Government Wide Enterprise Architecture (GWEA)

According to the Public Service Regulation – ‘each executive authority of a department shall develop plans:
(a) a strategic plan that comprises the department’s core objectives, its core and support activities, its
functions and structures, the goals, the programmes for attaining
those goals, and specify information systems by which to monitor the progress against the plan,
and
(b) an information plan that supports the strategic plan, an information infrastructure
plan, and an operational plan that comply with the interoperability and security standards of
Electronic Government.’
“Government‐Wide Enterprise Architecture, (GWEA) Framework Implementation Guide, Revision 1.2,
June 2010”

GWEA was developed by SITA and the Department of Public Administration on the back of the Master
System Planning (MSP) framework, it is closely aligned with TOGAF and it aims to provide guidance to the
public sector in terms of the minimum components to craft an ICT Plan. One of the weaknesses of the
framework is that it does not offer extensive guidance on how to implement it in the public sector. It is
expected of enterprise architects within the public sector to adopt TOGAF documentation when planning
for and implementing this framework. Whereas TOGAF provides extensive documentation on ‘how’ to
implement, GWEA does not.

GWEA aims to provide guidance to Executive Management to obtain buy-in from all stakeholders, for
Architects to establish solid foundational building blocks on which to capacitate public sector to align and
standardise on EA effort and to measure and validate performance against effective cohesion and optimal
use of public resources. GWEA also
 3. Comparison Overview
TOGAF GWEA

The Preliminary Phase Y Y

Architecture Vision Y Y

Business Architecture Y Y

Information Systems Architecture Y Y

Technology Architecture Y Y

Opportunities and Solutions Y N

Migration Planning Y N

Implementation Governance Y N

Architecture Change Management Y N

Requirements Management Y N

4. Conclusion
TOGAF and GWEA are based on the same fundamentals, however, GWEA does not provide any detail and
consists of Architecture Principles rather than repeatable steps and processes that must be followed.
GWEA provides 14 guiding principles that direct the EA team in establishing a plan for ICT, while TOGAF
provides a clear systematic process to achieving the plan based on a library in the Architecture Repository.

The guiding principles, related to GWEA, stop at the 5th phase of the ADM and therefore do not offer any
tangible content regarding migration and implementation. It is also not concerned with how to measure
performance and progression. The architect must reference TOGAF artifacts to perform these tasks.
Throughout the GWEA publication there are references to various TOGAF chapters that should be
referenced for guidance on and/or for implementation purposes.
5. References
a) Tang, A., Han, J. and Chen, P., 2004, August. A comparative analysis of architecture
frameworks (pp. 640-647). IEEE

b) Abdallah, S. and Galal-Edeen, G.H., 2006. Towards a framework for enterprise architecture
frameworks comparison and selection

c) Urbaczewski, L. and Mrdalj, S., 2006. A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in
information systems, 7(2), pp.18-23

d) Franke et al., 2009, May. EAF2-A framework for categorizing enterprise architecture
frameworks (pp. 327-332). IEEE

e) Lim, N et al., 2009, May. A comparative analysis of enterprise architecture frameworks based on EA
quality attributes (pp. 283-288). IEEE

f) TOGAF website on Open Group - https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf91-

doc/arch/

g) The Geo-Information Society of South Africa website – https://gissa.org.za/special-interest-

groups/open-source/foss-
documents/GWEA%20Framework%20Implementation%20Guide%20v1.2%20Jun%202010.pdf The

h) Open Group South Africa website

https://opengroup.co.za/sites/default/files/presentations/GWEA%20Framework%201.2%20EA%20
Forum%2030%20June%2009_0.pdf