Analysis of TOGAF to either DoDAF or FEAF Research Paper

analytic thinking of TOGAF to either DoDAF or FEAF - Research Paper ExampleThese components be further implemented by the miscellaneous widely used EA frameworks in organizations among which FEAF, TOGAF and ZACHMAN ar prime examples (Bente, Bombosch & Langade, 2012). This study deals with the analysis of two vital EA frameworks i.e. FEAF and TOGAF. affinity amid FEAF and TOGAF Both The commit Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) and the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) frameworks ar framed with the intention to enhance the architectural efficiency of companies which would further enable efficient execution of organizational strategies. Another similarity amid the two frameworks is that both of them share common EA features and foothold within apiece other. Application of these two frameworks with certain similar concepts of EA will further ensure that there is an agreement among the finale makers in any production line organization with regard to dealing with the objectives, requirements as hygienic as processes of the business with the help of advanced technologies. Additionally, these similar EA features in the two frameworks would further assure that decisions related to the investments on engineering in any business are taken efficiently. It has been noted that inefficient decision making in this aspect is viewed to harm various the objectives and priorities of organizations (TCRP, 2011). Furthermore, it has also been noted that both FEAF and TOGAF ascribed similar guidance in terms of architectural viewpoints. This aspect further addresses that both the frameworks provide similar directions to the organizations with regard to structuring their enterprise architecture (The kick in Group, 2007). Moreover, it has also been analyzed that the rows of the FEAF framework more or less correlate with the rows of the matrix of the TOGAF framework. This similarity between the two frameworks further depicts that both are intended toward s dividing architectural description into various crucial layers which are documented in the later stage in a more simplified manner (The Open Group, 2013). Difference between FEAF and TOGAF From the above analysis, it is apparent that both the frameworks i.e. FEAF and TOGAF share certain common features as well as targets between each other. However, it would also be vital to mention that both the frameworks (i.e. FEAF and TOGAF) are develop with diverse intentions which further depict certain inherent changes in their process of working, their ability to ascertain sound results along with their process of implementation among others. Contextually, one of the primary differences between the two frameworks is the aspect that both are controlled by different operators. The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) is operated under the framework of Department of demurral Architecture Framework (DODAF) while the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) is developed by the forefront Information Officers (CIO) in the United States Federal Council. This difference in operational ownership can be vindicated from the fact that FEAF is developed by the US Federal Council which maintains as well as facilitates co-ordinated systems of architectures within the federal agency. On the other hand, TOGAF focuses on ascertaining good and simplified principles instead of offering a set of complex architecture principles within diverse business units. Additionally, it has