If I were going to improve TOGAF I would:
- Separate guidance on how to use the TOGAF framework from the framework. Today good guidance is embedded, but all guidance is purpose specific. Embedded guidance also makes configuration more difficult, and creates confusion when specific guidance is not appropriate to all circumstances.
- With guidance removed, keep the framework at concepts, not instantiation of concept. Instantiation is for guidance. Clarify the elements of the TOGAF framework's roughly 3 sections:
- EA method: Current ADM and governance. Highlight the ADM as a logical model not a linear activity process.
- EA Contents: Clarify distinction between content framework and content meta-model. Clarify meta-model is one possible meta-model, and viewpoint library is one possible library and that when one customizes TOGAF, one works first here.
- EA Capability: Pull together the skills, governance, organization, process integration, patterns of usage.
- Enforce consistency in language usage in the framework. This would mean that most of us would need to map our preferred word, but we would at least be clear what TOGAF means. Today, I cannot have confidence that even when TOGAF uses my preferred word it uses the word with the depth of meaning and nuance I apply.
- Ensure that I had a complete set of templates, or examples, that instantiated each concept in the framework. Here I would be able to adopt, adapt or replace. There would be clarity that these are examples; they are not definitive.