Explore the differences between the flexible 360-degree model and the structured TOGAF framework to determine which combination best aligns with your organisation’s needs.
- Introduction
- Comparison: 360-Degree Model vs. TOGAF
- #1 Flexibility vs. Structure
- #2 Ease of Application
- #3 Customisation
- #4 Resource Requirements
- Conclusion
Introduction
When embarking on the journey to map out the architecture of a medium or large enterprise and define target states, adopting a lighter, more flexible model can be a strategic advantage.
A rigid framework like TOGAF, whilst comprehensive, can be overwhelming and complex for organisations just starting to navigate their architectural journey.
A lighter model, such as the 360-degree approach, allows teams to gain quick clarity, maintain flexibility, and focus on high-level goals before diving into intricate details.
This agility fosters quicker decision-making, easier buy-in from diverse stakeholders, and provides a foundation that can evolve as the organisation matures.
By starting with a lighter model, enterprises can ensure alignment between Business and Technology while avoiding the paralysis of over-structuring in the early stages of transformation.
Comparison: 360-Degree Model vs. TOGAF
#1 Flexibility vs. Structure
360-Degree Model
- Offers a holistic, adaptable approach that connects Business, Technology, and other factors without being confined to rigid methodologies.
- Emphasises a broad view with flexibility in application, making it easier to tailor to different organisational contexts.
- Pros: Easier to implement in certain cases, particularly for those looking for a high-level overview and broad alignment without deep structure. It is lighter in terms of documentation and formal processes.
-
Cons: Lack of clear, predefined steps might lead to confusion or inconsistency in some organisations.
How Leaders Can Help: Leaders can provide clear vision and objectives as adoption progresses. Create a safe space for experimentation and widen the scope of adoption as maturity increases. Teams can navigate the flexibility of the approach without losing alignment with Business goals when focused on clear near-term outcomes (map this portion of the domain at level-x) towards a known vision (map the entire domain to the Executive level).
TOGAF
- Provides a highly structured methodology with predefined steps (e.g., Architecture Development Method (ADM)), tools, and templates.
- Requires more rigour in application, focusing on detailed processes and documentation.
- Pros: Well-documented and comprehensive, making it ideal for organisations that need detailed guidance and want to ensure a systematic approach to architecture.
- Cons: Can be cumbersome and slow to adopt, especially for organisations that don’t need all the details in ADM. It may also be resource-intensive.
#2 Ease of Application
360-Degree Model
- More adaptable and less prescriptive, making it easier to apply.
- Focuses on aligning Business objectives with Technology capabilities without rigid processes.
- Pros: Agile, allows quick iterations and alignment, making it easier for organisations to adopt.
-
Cons: Its flexibility can sometimes result in a lack of direction or alignment if not carefully managed, particularly for those new to Architecture. Requires firm and committed leadership.
How Leaders Can Help: Offering ongoing support and establishing governance without stifling flexibility can help maintain focus and consistency as the team adopts the 360-degree model more widely.
Governance should go where the problems are. Trust is built as teams provide appropriate outcomes, this trust should lead to a reduction in direct governance. Review periodically to ensure the right level of rigour exists. Where it falls away, governance must become more instructive.
TOGAF
- Requires more time and expertise to apply due to its structured, step-by-step approach.
- Pros: Its systematic approach provides a solid foundation and clarity, making it ideal for organisations that are comfortable with structured processes.
- Cons: Steeper learning curve and can be resource-intensive. Full implementation requires dedicated personnel and time investment.
#3 Customisation
360-Degree Model:
- Can be adapted quickly based on organisational needs.
- Emphasis on collaboration and strategic alignment, rather than fixed sequences or templates.
- Pros: Highly customisable with flexibility to fit the organisation’s specific context.
-
Cons: Customisation can sometimes be too broad, potentially leading to a lack of standardisation across multiple teams or areas.
How Leaders Can Help: Providing a set of guiding principles for customisation, whilst avoiding micromanagement, can strike the right balance. Developing a strong Architecture and Engineering craft with relevant guardrails, automated where possible will help ensure consistency without bloating teams. Apply governance as noted above.
TOGAF:
- Customisation is possible, but within the core principles and processes defined by the methodology.
- Pros: Ensures consistency and standardisation across the organisation, which is especially important in larger, complex environments.
- Cons: Still requires adherence to its overall structure and flow, making it less flexible compared to other models.
#4 Resource Requirements
360-Degree Model
- Typically requires fewer resources to get started due to its broad approach.
- Pros: Less time-consuming and resource-heavy, with a focus on quick alignment and strategic visibility.
-
Cons: Limited resources might hinder deeper analysis or refinement in certain areas, especially as the organisation matures.
How Leaders Can Help: Leaders can guide the teams to prioritise key areas and deploy resources strategically as the organisation evolves. A phased approach allows for gradual refinement without overwhelming the teams early on. As noted above, leaders must give clear instruction regarding areas to focus on as the team progresses towards a more complex and difficult vision.
TOGAF
- Requires more resources, particularly in terms of training, specialised roles, and time investment.
- Pros: Comprehensive training and expertise can ensure that the architecture is well-executed and integrated across all areas.
- Cons: Time and resource-intensive, especially for the early stages of adoption.
Conclusion
While both the 360-Degree Model and TOGAF offer valuable frameworks for enterprise architecture, the key takeaway is that taking action—regardless of the model you choose—is far more impactful than remaining stagnant.
For many organisations, especially those at the beginning of their journey to map out current and future states & align Technology with Business goals, a lighter, more flexible model can be more effective more quickly than a rigid, complicated and resource-intensive approach.
The 360-Degree Model’s adaptability allows for quicker iterations and more immediate alignment with strategic objectives, making it an ideal starting point.
If you’re looking to build momentum and create real, actionable outcomes, the most important thing is to start moving.
The decision to adopt a flexible model today can set the foundation for more structured approaches down the road, ensuring your Enterprise remains agile and responsive to ever-changing needs.
For more insights on how to begin this journey and choose the right model, check out The Six Levels of Great Architecture: A 360-Degree Lens.
