Jeff’s Notes #
The value of TOGAF is not in the diagrams, but in the Decision Gates and Compliance Reviews it enforces. In modern practice, the biggest failure point is translating Target Architecture (Phase C) into an auditable, cost-optimized FinOps Baseline.
This analysis focuses on the practical challenge of ensuring that the Architecture Vision defined early in the cycle does not become a FinOps Nightmare upon implementation.
Enterprise Architecture Dilemma: Abstract Design vs. Concrete Cost #
-
Scenario: [CREATE A BUSINESS/IT ALIGNMENT SCENARIO. Example: A large enterprise is defining its Target Architecture (Phase C). The architects recommend using a ‘Microservices’ pattern for high flexibility (good Architecture Vision). However, the implementation team must choose between Kubernetes (Ops Heavy) and Serverless (Cost Variable) deployments, which was not detailed in Phase C.]
-
The Requirement (TOGAF Compliance): How should the architecture team ensure the Target Architecture’s economic viability and maintain compliance with the Architecture Vision, specifically during the Phase C and D transition?
-
The Trade-offs (Options):
A) [OPTION A: Focus strictly on functional requirements per the Architecture Vision. Delegate cost modeling to the implementation team.]
B) [OPTION B: Introduce a FinOps Cost-Modeling Step within Phase C, requiring a TCO baseline for all major application components before Phase D (Technology Architecture).]
C) [OPTION C: Defer all cost and operational decisions until the final Phase E (Opportunities and Solutions), making a high-level technology choice only.]
The Enterprise Architect’s Analysis #
-
Preferred Strategic Approach (FinOps-Integrated ADM): Option [B]
-
The Winning Logic (TOGAF Rationale): [EXPLAIN WHY Option B maintains the ADM integrity. Reference the need for economic viability (a key TOGAF consideration) and how delaying cost integration violates the principle of minimizing re-work in later phases.]
📉 ADM Decision Mapping: Cost and Compliance #
| ADM Phase | Deliverable Impacted | FinOps Integration Status | Risk of Non-Compliance / Overspending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase A (Vision) | Architecture Vision | Conceptual | Low |
| Phase C (IS Arch.) | Target Application Map | CRITICAL (Requires TCO Modeling) | High (If deferred) |
| Phase D (Tech Arch.) | Technology Roadmap | Execution Focused | Low (If C was done correctly) |
| Recommendation | Target Architecture must be linked to TCO per Application Component in Phase C. |
Real-World Application (EA Insight) #
-
TOGAF Principle Applied: [STATE THE CORE TOGAF PRINCIPLE. E.g., The principle of “Maximizing the Benefit to the Enterprise”, where benefit includes cost optimization.]
-
Real World: In practice, successful enterprises treat FinOps as a continuous Architecture Governance tool. The Architecture Review Board (ARB) should use TCO analysis (from Phase C/D) as a Gate-Check to ensure the implemented architecture remains aligned with the economic targets established in the initial Architecture Vision.
Call to Action #
🚀 Architect for Success, Govern for Profit.
Your TOGAF certification proves you know the framework. We teach you how to make it profitable. Don’t miss the launch of our Multi-Cloud FinOps Optimization Toolkit, which includes TOGAF ADM-integrated TCO Modeling Templates.
👉 Subscribe to ADH Weekly Insights for exclusive early access and advanced strategy notifications!
Disclaimer #
This is a study note based on simulated scenarios for applying TOGAF principles. It is not an official question from The Open Group.