The document discusses different approaches to applying the Architecture Development Method (ADM) at various enterprise levels. It describes iterating the ADM cycle to establish architecture context, define architecture content through business, information systems, and technology architecture phases, and govern change progression towards the target architecture. Two definition styles are outlined: baseline first assesses current state to identify improvements when the target is unclear, while target first elaborates the target then maps back to identify changes when the target is agreed at a high level. The enterprise must be partitioned into areas served by different architectures. Applying the ADM across multiple levels provides comprehensive coverage but requires extensive governance, while applying it within a single level is more lightweight but risks delays and inefficient repetition between phases.

1. Summarised - 2010

2.  Applying Iteration to the ADM
 Applying the ADM at different Enterprise
Levels
 ADM Cycle Approaches

4. Architecture Context iterations allow initial mobilization of architecture activity
by establishing the architecture approach, principles, scope, and vision.
Architecture Definition iterations allow the creation of
architecture content by cycling through Business, Information
Systems, and Technology Architecture phases. These iterations
also allow viability and feasibility tests to be carried out by looking
at opportunities and migration planning.
Architecture Governance iterations support governance
of change activity progressing towards a defined Target
Architecture.
Transition Planning iterations support the creation of for
mal change roadmaps for a defined architecture

5.  Two process styles can be adopted within
the ADM for the definition of architectures:
◦ Baseline First: In this style, an assessment of the baseline (i.e., current
state) landscape is used to identify problem areas and improvement
opportunities. This process is suitable when a target solution is not clearly
understood and agreed upon.
◦ Target First: In this style, the target solution is elaborated in detail and
then mapped back to the baseline, in order to identify change activity.
This process is suitable when a target state is agreed at a high level and
where the enterprise wishes to avoid proliferating current business
practice into the target model.

9. The enterprise must be
partitioned into different
areas, each of which can
be supported by
architectures (Subject
Matter, Time Period and
Level of Detail)

12. Key Benefits
1. It is lightweight, as multiple architectures can
be developed against a single Request for
Work, project plan, etc.
2. It allows for very close integration of
architectures at different levels in the
organization.
3. It works well when all architectures are being
developed by a single team.
Key Limitations
1. It does not explicitly set out governance and
change management relationships between
the different architectures.
2. It requires all architectures to be completed in
sequence and potentially released at the
same time. This may delay the release of
strategic architectures or prevent specific
Capability Architectures from being
developed.
3. Similar architectural activities are repeated
within a number of phases within the ADM. It
may become difficult to distinguish the
differences between different phases.

13. Key Benefits
1. It is comprehensive. All ADM activities are
carried out at all levels.
2. It establishes explicit governance
relationships between architectures.
3. It allows for federated development of
architectures at different levels in the
organization.
Key Limitations
1. It requires the establishment of an
enterprise-wide governance hierarchy to be
effective.
2. It does not work well when many
architectures are being developed by the
same team of architects.

14.  TOGAF Version 9, The Open Group
Architecture Framework (TOGAF), 2009

15. If you have one last breath
use it to say...