TOGAF SOA Practical Guide

Open Group Guide
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented

Architectures
Copyright © 2011, The Open Group
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the
copyright owner.
It is fair use of this specification for implementers to use the names, labels, etc. contained within the
specification. The intent of publication of the specification is to encourage implementations of the
specification.
This specification has not been verified for avoidance of possible third-party proprietary rights. In
implementing this specification, usual procedures to ensure the respect of possible third-party intellectual
property rights should be followed.
Open Group Guide
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures
ISBN: 1-931624-95-X
Document Number: G113
Published by The Open Group, May 2011.
Comments relating to the material contained in this document may be submitted to:
The Open Group

Apex Plaza
Forbury Road
Reading
Berkshire, RG1 1AX
United Kingdom
or by electronic mail to:
ogspecs@opengroup.org
ii Open Group Guide (2011)

Contents
1 Introduction and Objective ............................................................................ 11
2 Overview ....................................................................................................... 12
2.1 The Open Group SOA Work Group .................................................12
3 Service-Oriented Architecture Defined......................................................... 14

3.1.1 SOA Features....................................................................14
3.1.2 How Enterprise Architecture Supports Service-
Orientation ........................................................................14
4 Using TOGAF for Enterprise SOA ............................................................... 16

4.1 The Preliminary Phase .....................................................................17
4.1.1 The Principle of Service-Orientation .................................18
4.1.2 SOA Maturity Assessment ................................................19
4.1.3 Governance and Support Strategy......................................20
4.1.4 Initial Architecture Repository and the SOA Reference
Architecture ......................................................................22
4.1.5 Partitions & Centers of Excellence: Establishing the
Architecture ―Team‖ .........................................................24
4.1.6 Summary ..........................................................................25
4.2 Phase A: The Architecture Vision ....................................................25
4.2.1 The Nature of the Enterprise .............................................25
4.2.2 Level of Detail of Implementation Specification ................27
4.2.3 The Vision ........................................................................27
4.2.4 Stakeholders, Concerns, and Business Requirements .........28
4.3 TOGAF 9 Architecture Development (Phases B, C, and D) ..............28
4.4 Phase B: The Business Architecture .................................................32
4.5 Phase C: The Information Systems Architectures (Applications
and Data) ...................................................................................................35
4.6 Phase D: The Technology Architecture ............................................38
4.7 Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions ...............................................40
4.8 Phase F: Migration Planning ............................................................43
4.9 Phase G: Implementation Governance ..............................................43
4.10 Phase H: Architecture Change Management .....................................43
5 Summary ....................................................................................................... 44
A Summary of Adjustments to TOGAF Phases ............................................... 47
B Relations to the SOA Work Group Projects.................................................. 53

B.1 SOA Reference Architecture ............................................................53
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures iii

B.2 SOA Governance .............................................................................54
B.3 Overview Meta-Model – Solution Portfolio......................................54
B.4 SOA and Security ............................................................................55
B.5 Legacy to SOA ................................................................................56
C Architecture Levels and the Meta-Model ..................................................... 57

C.1 Strategic Level .................................................................................57
C.2 Segment Level .................................................................................57
C.3 Capability Level ..............................................................................57
iv Open Group Guide (2011)

Table of Figures
Figure 1: TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) ................................................ 17
Figure 2: Open Group SOA Maturity Model ........................................................................... 19
Figure 3: SOA Governance Supports IT and Enterprise Architecture Governance ................... 20
Figure 4: SOA Governance Reference Model ......................................................................... 21
Figure 5: SOA Governance Vitality Method ........................................................................... 22
Figure 6: SOA Reference Architecture .................................................................................... 23
Figure 7: Scoping the Enterprise Architecture ......................................................................... 26
Figure 8: TOGAF 9 Meta-Model with Key SOA Entities Highlighted ..................................... 29
Figure 9: TOGAF 9 Meta-Model with Relationships Updated with SOA Extensions ............... 30
Figure 10: Phase B: Business Architecture Meta-Model Detail................................................ 33
Figure 11: Phase C: Information Systems Architecture Meta-Model Detail ............................. 36
Figure 12: Technology Architecture Meta-Model Detail ......................................................... 39
Figure 13: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions Meta-Model Detail....................................... 41
Figure 14: SOA-TOGAF Meta-Model .................................................................................... 46
Figure 15: Preliminary Phase Adjustments .............................................................................. 47
Figure 16: Phase A (Architecture Vision) Adjustments ........................................................... 48
Figure 17: Phase B (Business Architecture) Adjustments ........................................................ 49
Figure 18: Phase C (Information Systems Architecture) Adjustments ...................................... 50
Figure 19: Phase D (Technology Architecture) Adjustments ................................................... 51
Figure 20: Phase E (Opportunities & Solutions) Adjustments .................................................. 52
Figure 21: Relationship of SOA Reference Architecture to SOA Meta-Model Entities ............ 53
Figure 22: Relationship of SOA Governance to SOA Meta-Model Entities ............................. 54
Figure 23: Relationship of SOA Portfolio Management to SOA Meta-Model Entities ............. 54
Figure 24: Relationship of SOA Security to SOA Meta-Model Entities ................................... 55
Figure 25: Relationship of SOA Security to SOA Meta-Model Entities ................................... 56
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures v

Preface
The Open Group
The Open Group is a vendor-neutral and technology-neutral consortium, whose vision of

Boundaryless Information Flow™ will enable access to integrated information within and
between enterprises based on open standards and global interoperability. The Open Group works
with customers, suppliers, consortia, and other standards bodies. Its role is to capture,
understand, and address current and emerging requirements, establish policies, and share best
practices; to facilitate interoperability, develop consensus, and evolve and integrate
specifications and Open Source technologies; to offer a comprehensive set of services to
enhance the operational efficiency of consortia; and to operate the industry's premier
certification service, including UNIX® certification.
Further information on The Open Group is available at www.opengroup.org.
The Open Group has over 15 years' experience in developing and operating certification
programs and has extensive experience developing and facilitating industry adoption of test
suites used to validate conformance to an open standard or specification.
More information is available at www.opengroup.org/certification.
The Open Group publishes a wide range of technical documentation, the main part of which is
focused on development of Technical and Product Standards and Guides, but which also
includes white papers, technical studies, branding and testing documentation, and business titles.
Full details and a catalog are available at www.opengroup.org/bookstore.
This Document
This document is the Technical Guide for Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-
Oriented Architectures. It has been developed and approved by The Open Group.
vi Open Group Guide (2011)

Trademarks
Boundaryless Information Flow™ is a trademark and ArchiMate®, Jericho Forum®, Making
Standards Work®, Motif®, OSF/1®, The Open Group®, TOGAF®, UNIX®, and the ``X'' device
are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries.
UML® is a registered trademark of the Object Management Group, Inc. in the United States
and/or other countries.
The Open Group acknowledges that there may be other brand, company, and product names
used in this document that may be covered by trademark protection and advises the reader to
verify them independently.
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures vii

Acknowledgements
The Open Group gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the following people in the
development of this document:
 Stephen G. Bennett, Oracle
 Tony Carrato, IBM
 Awel Dico, Bank of Montreal
 Mats Gejnevall, Capgemini
 Ed Harrington, Architecting the Enterprise
 Dave Hornford, Conexiam
viii Open Group Guide (2011)

Referenced Documents
The following documents are referenced in this Technical Guide:
 Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.1, Object Management Group;
available from www.omg.org.
 Definition of SOA: The Open Group; available from
www.opengroup.org/soa/soa/def.htm#_Definition_of_SOA.
 IEEE Std 1471-2000: IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of
Software-intensive Systems (adopted by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 as ISO/IEC 42010:2007);
available from standards.ieee.org.
 ISO/IEC 42010:2007: Systems and Software Engineering – Recommended Practice for
Architectural Description of Software-intensive Systems; available from www.iso.org.
 Navigating the SOA Open Standards Landscape Around Architecture (W096), White
Paper published by The Open Group, November 2009; refer to:
www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/w096.htm.
 OASIS Reference Model for Service-Oriented Architecture, Version 1.0, and OASIS
Reference Architecture for Service-Oriented Architecture, Version 1.0, Organization for
the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); available from
www.oasis-open.org.
 OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004,
World-Wide Web Consortium; available from www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref.
 Service-Oriented Architecture Modeling Language (SoaML), Object Management Group;
available from www.omg.org.
 The Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM) (C092), Technical
Standard published by The Open Group, August 2009; refer to:
www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/c092.htm (also available as part of The Open
Group SOA Source Book).
 The Open Group Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Reference Architecture, published
as part of the SOA Source Book; refer to:
www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g102.htm.
 The Open Group Service Oriented Infrastructure (SOI) Reference Model; published as
part of the SOA Source Book; refer to: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g102.htm.
 The Open Group SOA Governance Framework (C093), Technical Standard published by
The Open Group, August 2009; refer to: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/c093.htm
(also available as part of The Open Group SOA Source Book).
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures ix

 The Open Group SOA Governance work is published by as part of the SOA Source Book;
refer to: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g102.htm
 The Open Group SOA Ontology (C104), Technical Standard published by The Open
Group, October 2010; refer to: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/c104.htm.
 The Open Group SOA Source Book (G102) is a collection of source material published by
The Open Group (April 2010) for use by enterprise architects working with Service-
Oriented Architecture; refer to: www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g102.htm.
 TOGAF (G091), published by The Open Group, February 2009; refer to:
www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/g091.htm.
x Open Group Guide (2011)

1 Introduction and Objective
The purpose of this Technical Guide is to contribute to The Open Group mission of
Boundaryless Information Flow, by providing guidance on how the architect can use TOGAF –
now in Version 9 – to develop, manage, and govern Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA) or
any architecture where SOA is part of the scope. This should facilitate the common
understanding of the process for the development of SOAs and greatly improve alignment
between the business and information technology communities. Utilization of the process, meta-
model, references, and other TOGAF facilities will lead to the further adoption of SOA as an
architectural style.
TOGAF adoption for SOA provides a number of facilities to assist the architect:
1. This Guide adapts the well-recognized set of best practice processes for the development,
management, governance, and adoption of enterprise architecture and applies it
specifically to SOA.
2. This Guide provides specific information on the adaption of TOGAF to develop SOA in
the following areas:
a. Use of the Architecture Development Method (ADM) to develop SOAs
b. Modification of the TOGAF Content Meta-model for SOAs
c. Modification of the TOGAF Content Relationship Meta-model for SOAs
d. Adoption of SOA-specific general and technical reference models and their use
within a TOGAF environment
e. Adoption of SOA-specific governance requirements for a TOGAF environment
f. Adoption of SOA-specific maturity models for application within a TOGAF
environment
This Guide is designed for use by:

 Business people and business analysts to develop/identify/analyze the inherent linkage of
business services delivered as information technology services
 Solutions/data/security/technology architects for the recognition of stakeholder viewpoints
and the delivery of views/artifact that address stakeholder concerns specific to business
and technology services
 Enterprise architects for the recognition of the re-usability of services across the
organization and the prevention of the proliferation of information silos
 System and software designers for guidance in the delivery of architecture-compliant SOA
solutions
Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 11

2 Overview
As the business environment becomes more sophisticated, the challenges facing organizations
are shifting away from questions of efficiency and automation towards questions of complexity
management and business agility.
Complex webs of existing applications and interfaces create highly complex landscapes where
change becomes more and more difficult and the impacts of change become harder to predict
and understand.
The concept of SOA provides an architectural style that is specifically intended to simplify the
business and the interoperation of different parts of that business. By structuring capability as
meaningful, granular services as opposed to opaque, silo‘ed business units, it becomes possible
to quickly identify functional capabilities of an organization, avoid duplicating similar
capabilities across the organization, and quickly assemble new capabilities.
By standardizing the behavior and interoperation of services, it is possible to limit the impacts of
change and also to understand in advance the likely chain of impacts.
From a software development perspective, SOA focuses on structuring applications in a way that
facilitates system flexibility and agility – a necessity in today‘s complex and fast-moving
business environment. SOA aims to break down traditional application silos into portfolios of
granular services that operate in open and interoperable ways, while extracting commodity
capability into a virtualized infrastructure platform of shared re-usable utility services.
2.1 The Open Group SOA Work Group

The Open Group SOA Work Group was formed in October 2005 to develop and foster a
common understanding of SOA. This was (and remains) fully aligned with The Open Group
strategic objective to develop ―Boundaryless Information Flow‖ through the production of
definitions, analyses, recommendations, reference models, guides, and standards. This activity is
specifically directed at ensuring that the information technology utilized by the enterprise is
specifically in place to support the requirements of the business. For more information, see the
SOA Source Book.
The SOA Work Group is open to all Platinum, Gold, and Silver members of The Open Group
and since its start-up has had participation from over 400 individuals from over 60 member
companies. Information concerning the work of the SOA Work Group can be obtained at
www.opengroup.org/projects/soa.
The SOA Work Group has undertaken numerous projects that provide valuable input to those
who may be interested in utilizing TOGAF in developing their SOAs. At a summary level, these
include:
12 Open Group Guide (2011)

 Completed Projects:
— Definition of SOA
— SOA Case Studies
— Value that The Open Group can add to SOA
— SOA Governance
— Ontologies for SOA
— SOA/TOGAF Practical Guide (this document)
 Current Work Program:
— Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure
— SOA Reference Architecture
— Security for the Cloud and SOA
— Legacy Evolution to SOA
 Other Completed Open Group SOA Activities:
— SOA Maturity Model – OSIMM (Board project)
— SOA Source Book
— SOA Tutorials
The following sections will discuss each of these, emphasizing their relevance to developing
SOAs using TOGAF.

3 Service-Oriented Architecture Defined
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural style that supports service-orientation.
Service-orientation is a way of thinking in terms of services and service-based development and

the outcomes of services.
A service is a logical representation of a repeatable business activity that has a specified

outcome (e.g., check customer credit; provide weather data, consolidate drilling reports, etc.)
and:
 Is self-contained
 May be composed of other services
 Is a ―black box‖ to consumers of the service
An architectural style is the combination of distinctive features in which architecture is

performed or expressed.
3.1.1 SOA Features

SOA is based on the design of solutions using services – which mirror real-world business
activities – comprising the enterprise (or inter-enterprise) business processes. Service
representation utilizes business descriptions to provide context (i.e., business process, goal, rule,
policy, service interface, service component, etc.).
SOA places unique requirements on the infrastructure. Because of this, it is recommended that
implementations use open standards to realize interoperability and location transparency. For
instance, those requiring the use of those services must somehow document the availability of
services in a place easily accessible. An SOA-specific Directory Service and an Enterprise
Service Bus are two examples of technology implementations that require adherence to relevant
open standards to achieve the interoperability that SOA promises.
Implementations are enterprise environment-specific – they are constrained or enabled by

context and must be described within that context. Given that, SOA requires strong governance
of service representation and implementation.
3.1.2 How Enterprise Architecture Supports Service-Orientation

Enterprise architecture provides frameworks, tools, and techniques to assist organizations with
the development and maintenance of their SOAs. Some of the key benefits that enterprise
architecture provides include:
 Consistent abstractions of high-level strategies and deliverables to support planning and
analysis

 Linkage of different perspectives to a single business problem (e.g., business, data,
application, technology, abstract, concrete, etc.) providing a consistent model to address
various domains and tests for completeness
 Identification of clear roadmaps to achieve future state
 Traceability that links IT and other assets to the business they support
 Support for impact assessment, risk/value analysis, and portfolio management
 Identified and documented principles, constraints, frameworks, patterns, and standards
 Governance frameworks and processes that ensure appropriate authority for decision-
making
Enterprise architecture becomes a foundation for service-orienting an organization because it

links stakeholders together, ensuring that the needs of each stakeholder community are met and
that each stakeholder community is aware of appropriate context. This linkage is the foundation
for interoperability and re-use.
Through its linking of the business context to information technology, enterprise architecture
readily identifies and provides justification for the cost of change programs in relation to the
business value to be derived from the effort. Enterprise architecture may provide the context and
analysis capabilities to support:
 Showing how SOA solutions can be effectively architected to support business
capabilities
 Showing which services should be built and which should be re-used
 Showing how services should be designed
Without enterprise architecture, the risk may increase for:

 Limited agility
 Difficulty identifying and orchestrating SOA services
 Service sprawl
 Exponentially growing governance challenges
 Limited SOA service interoperability
 Limited SOA service re-use
 Multiple silo‘ed SOAs
 Difficulty evolving and changing SOA implementations

4 Using TOGAF for Enterprise SOA
An effective enterprise architecture is critical to business survival and success, and is the
indispensable means to achieving competitive advantage through IT. TOGAF is a detailed
method and a set of supporting tools for developing enterprise architectures. It codifies the good
practice that has evolved in the work of enterprise and IT architects over many years. It will help
the architect to decide where and how to use SOA.
The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) breaks the complex process of
architecture development into a number of simpler steps, or phases, in which the architect
considers different aspects of the overall problem:
 The Preliminary Phase
 Architecture Requirements Management
 Phase A: The Architecture Vision
 Phase B: The Business Architecture
 Phase C: The Information Systems Architectures (Applications and Data)
 Phase D: The Technology Architecture
 Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions
 Phase F: Migration Planning
 Phase G: Implementation Governance
 Phase H: Architecture Change Management
Those familiar with TOGAF will recognize the following graphical depiction of the ADM:

Figure 1: TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)
This section describes, for each phase of the TOGAF ADM, what the architect should consider
particularly when looking to apply the principle of service-orientation, and how this affects the
outputs of the phase. In short, it explains how to use TOGAF to do SOA.
This is not a self-standing description. It assumes knowledge of TOGAF, and leaves out
everything that is not related to SOA. To follow it, the architect must know about TOGAF. The
architect can find all the information needed on the TOGAF website.
4.1 The Preliminary Phase

The TOGAF Preliminary Phase is about defining ―where, what, why, who, and how we do
architecture‖ in the enterprise concerned. It does the preparation and establishes the architecture
framework needed for new enterprise architecture work. TOGAF provides for incremental
architecture development. Each cycle through Phases A to H creates an increment to the
enterprise architecture. (The cycles typically overlap, with Phases A to F of each new cycle
being carried out in parallel with Phase G: Implementation Governance of the previous cycle.)
The Preliminary Phase does what is needed before the cycles can start. It is usually carried out

when TOGAF is first adopted by a particular architecture team for a particular enterprise. Its
activities may be re-visited as needed for subsequent architecture engagements.
The Preliminary Phase is where the architect adopts the principle of service-orientation. This
affects two other outputs of the phase: the governance and support strategy, and the content of
the initial Architecture Repository.
4.1.1 The Principle of Service-Orientation

The starting point for SOA development with TOGAF is that the enterprise adopts service-
orientation as an architecture principle.
Architecture principles define the underlying general rules and guidelines for the use and
deployment of all IT resources and assets across the enterprise. They reflect a level of consensus
among the various elements of the enterprise, and form the basis for making future architecture
decisions. The Preliminary Phase defines the architecture principles that will form part of the
constraints on any architecture work undertaken in the enterprise. They are typically developed
by the lead enterprise architect, in conjunction with key stakeholders, and are approved by the
Architecture Board. They are included in the tailored architecture framework, which is an output
of the Preliminary Phase.
TOGAF Version 9 has an example set of architecture principles, which includes a principle of
service-orientation, as number 6 in the Business Principles examples:
Principle Service-Orientation
Statement The architecture is based on a design of services which mirror real-world business
activities comprising the enterprise (or inter-enterprise) business processes.
Rationale Service-orientation delivers enterprise agility and Boundaryless Information Flow.
Implications Service representation utilizes business descriptions to provide context (i.e., business
process, goal, rule, policy, service interface, and service component) and implements
services using service orchestration.
Service-orientation places unique requirements on the infrastructure, and
implementations should use open standards to realize interoperability and location
transparency.
Implementations are environment-specific; they are constrained or enabled by context
and must be described within that context.
Strong governance of service representation and implementation is required.
A ‗‗Litmus Test‘‘, which determines a ‗‗good service‘‘, is required.
An enterprise wishing to use TOGAF for SOA should include this principle, either as it stands or
in modified form, in its set of architecture principles.
If the architect is introducing TOGAF to an enterprise that is already committed to SOA, or that
is part of a larger enterprise that has made a strategic decision to use SOA, then adoption of the
principle of service-orientation is a given. If, on the other hand, the architect is introducing SOA
to an enterprise that is not already committed to it, then the decision to adopt this principle
should not be taken lightly.

4.1.2 SOA Maturity Assessment
Successful SOA depends in part on the readiness of the enterprise to become service-oriented.
The architect can conduct an SOA maturity assessment during the Preliminary Phase, using The
Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM) described in the SOA Source Book
as part of the review of the organizational context for conducting enterprise architecture. This
will help to establish the rationale for the enterprise to adopt the principle of service-orientation.
OSIMM examines seven areas of maturity and helps to categorize these into seven levels of
maturity. Graphically, it is briefly depicted as follows:
Figure 2: Open Group SOA Maturity Model
OSIMM will help identify the organization‘s SOA level of maturity, but more importantly, it can
identify where the organization needs to be to adopt the principle of service-orientation. The
gaps between the current state of the organization and where it wants to be can often be readily
described.
As with the introduction of any significant new idea, it is good to start with a small project, and
learn from experience, before implementing on a wide scale. The architect can undertake a
complete but rapid TOGAF cycle, provisionally assuming service-orientation, without spending
too much effort on detailed analysis, to define a pilot SOA project. Successful implementation of
that project will then lead to final adoption of the principle and close off any maturity assessment
gaps identified over time.
From here on we assume that the principle of service-orientation is adopted.

4.1.3 Governance and Support Strategy
TOGAF does not attempt to describe all aspects of implementation and operational governance,
only those areas directly related to the architecture under development. It assumes that detailed
governance for those areas is in place. The Preliminary Phase includes confirming the
architecture governance and support strategy, as part of the Organizational Model for Enterprise
Architecture. The architect should review the existing governance procedures, and confirm that
they are appropriate for SOA. If they are not, then the architect should make recommendations
for changing them.
It may not be appropriate to undertake the detailed development of governance rules and
procedures as part of the Preliminary Phase. It could be better to confirm the architecture
governance procedures (which are not much affected by SOA), and to commission a separate
project to define implementation and operational governance procedures before implementation
starts.
Since SOA governance is considered critical to its success and as an aid to the enterprise
architect, The Open Group SOA Work Group has developed a governance framework that
focuses on SOA and may be used to enhance existing governance frameworks. A summary of
The Open Group SOA Governance work is available as part of the SOA Source Book, as is the
detailed SOA Governance Technical Standard.
A high-level view of how SOA governance extends and supports both enterprise architecture
and IT governance is given in Figure 3:
Figure 3: SOA Governance Supports IT and Enterprise Architecture Governance

There is also a Governance Reference Model that is depicted in Figure 4:
Figure 4: SOA Governance Reference Model
In addition to describing in detail the various aspects of SOA governance, the model also
suggests a ―Vitality Method‖ (SGVM) which is a process that utilizes the SOA Governance
Reference Model (SGRM) as a baseline and then follows a number of phased activities to
customize this baseline model to cater to the organization‘s variants. SOA governance should be
viewed as a process and not a project; therefore, the phases of the SGVM should be viewed as a
continuous improvement loop, whereby progress is measured, and course-correction and updates
to the SOA Governance Regimen and SOA Governance Roadmap are performed when needed.
Figure 5 is a high-level graphic of the SGVM:

Figure 5: SOA Governance Vitality Method
4.1.4 Initial Architecture Repository and the SOA Reference Architecture

The enterprise's Architecture Repository contains a collection of models, patterns, architecture
descriptions, and other artifacts that are available for the development of its architectures. They
may result from previous architecture work in the enterprise or from work in other enterprises, or
in industry bodies. The Preliminary Phase of TOGAF includes the establishment of an
Architecture Repository with an initial collection of material.
The SOA Work Group has compiled numerous materials that may be relevant in initially
populating the Architecture Repository. The Source Book describes the Service-Oriented
Architecture (SOA) Reference Architecture, which is a significant underlying logical structure
for the development and assessment of architectures designed and built using a combination of
traditional and service-oriented computing principles and concepts. It contains the following
sections:
 The Building Blocks of SOA, which describes a set of architecture building blocks that
represent the key elements of SOA
 The SOA Reference Architecture, which gives an overview of the nine layers of the
reference architecture, with examples and rationale describing the main responsibilities of
the layers and their primary building blocks

 Detailed Building Blocks of the SOA Reference Architecture, which presents detailed
models that show how some of the features of SOA can be implemented using the
reference architecture
 Infrastructure for SOA, which describes architecture building blocks that correspond to
infrastructure products that are available today to support service-oriented applications
A summary graphic that describes the SOA Reference Architecture follows:
Figure 6: SOA Reference Architecture
The nine ―layers‖ are described as follows:

 Operational Systems Layer:
— Programs and data of the operational systems of the enterprise
— The new and existing infrastructure needed to support the SOA solution
 Service Components Layer:
— Software components, each of which provides the implementation or ―realization‖ for
a service, or operation on a service, and binds the service contract to the
implementation of the service in the operational systems layer
 Services Layer:
— Services, with their descriptions, contracts, and policies, and the containers that contain
the service components

 Business Processes Layer:
— Business processes , and compositions in which business processes are composed of
other business processes and of services
 Consumer Interfaces Layer:
— The programs by which the users interface to the services
 Integration Layer:
— Integration of and communication between other building blocks, including messaging,
message transformation, complex event processing, service composition, and service
discovery
 Quality of Service Layer:
— Monitoring and management of the quality of service of the architected system,
including its performance, reliability, availability, scalability, security, and
manageability
 Information Layer:
— Management, analysis, interpretation, and transformation of data
 Governance Layer:
— Governance rules and procedures
— Services and programs that support the application of the rules and the operation of the
procedures
4.1.5 Partitions & Centers of Excellence: Establishing the Architecture “Team”

TOGAF establishes the Architecture Team and Organization – team structure, roles,
responsibilities, etc. – in the Preliminary Phase to support a desired architecture capability. With
SOA we suggest a specific method of establishing that architecture capability: the SOA Center
of Excellence (CoE).
Different teams will work on different elements of architecture at the same time. Partitions allow
for specific groups of architects to own and develop specific elements of the architecture (see
partitions and scoping in Phase A). It is suggested that the team start with a focused initiative
before implementing on a wide scale.
The team responsible for SOA should initially be structured as a CoE.
A successful CoE will have several key attributes:

 A clear definition of the CoE‘s mission: why it exists, its scope of responsibility, and what
the organization and the architecture practice should expect from the CoE.
 Clear goals for the CoE including measurements and key performance indicators (KPIs).
It is important to ensure that the measures and KPIs of the CoE do not drive inappropriate
selection of SOA as the architecture style.

 The CoE will provide the ―Litmus Test‖ of a good service.
 The CoE will disseminate the skills, experience, and capabilities of the SOA CoE to the
rest of the architecture practice.
 Identify how members of the CoE and other architecture practitioners will be rewarded for
success.
 Recognition that, at the start, it is unlikely the organization will have the necessary skills
to create a fully functional CoE. The necessary skills and experience must be carefully
identified, and where they are not present, acquired. A fundamental skill for leading
practitioners within the CoE is the ability to mentor other practitioners transferring
knowledge, skills, and experience.
 Close-out plan for when the CoE has fulfilled its purpose.
4.1.6 Summary
In summary, when developing the TOGAF Preliminary Phase, there are a number of methods,
tools, and reference materials that have been developed by the SOA Work Group to help the
enterprise architect develop their Service SOA. These include:
 Principles: service-orientation
 Determining orgainization readiness for SOA: OSIMM
 Governance: The Open Group SOA Governance Model and Vitality Method
 Adapting Reference Architectures to the Organization: The SOA Reference Architecture
 Establishing a SOA Center of Excellence (CoE) as an initial ―footprint‖
4.2 Phase A: The Architecture Vision

The Architecture Vision phase is concerned with establishing the architecture project and
obtaining approval to proceed.
This phase captures the scope of the architectural initiative, which depends on the nature of the
enterprise and the level of detail of implementation specification. It creates a compelling vision
of what the organization will have at end-of-job, after all the projects necessary to instantiate the
architecture have been completed. And it identifies the key stakeholders, concerns, and business
requirements.
4.2.1 The Nature of the Enterprise

The scope of an enterprise architecture development depends on the size and structure of the
enterprise.
TOGAF defines ―enterprise‖ as any collection of organizations that has a common set of goals.
For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a
corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linked

together by common ownership. An ―enterprise architecture‖ can encompass all of the
information and technology services, processes, and infrastructure of an entire enterprise, or just
cover a specific domain within an enterprise. In both cases, the architecture crosses multiple
systems and functional groups.
The size and complexity of an enterprise affects the way the enterprise architect develops its
architecture. Where there are many different organizational and business models, it is not
practical to integrate them within a single architecture. There are very few infrastructure items,
such as the Internet and the World-Wide Web, that can be applied across the whole of a large
organization and they provide only a basic level of support for business processes. It is therefore
generally not appropriate to develop a single, integrated SOA for a large and complex enterprise.
For such an enterprise, the architect should look first at developing a strategic architecture that
gives a summary formal description of the enterprise, providing an organizing framework for
operational and change activity, and an executive-level, long-term view for direction setting.
This might, for example, identify particular segments where SOA should be used, and call for
use of standards for interaction between segments, but it is highly unlikely to specify particular
services or groups of services, or to prescribe a detailed infrastructure for SOA. The architect
could then develop segment architectures, each of which gives a detailed, formal description of
areas within an enterprise, used at the program or portfolio level to organize and align change
activity. Each of these segment architectures could be a single, integrated SOA. This concept is
depicted in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Scoping the Enterprise Architecture
For a smaller and less complex enterprise whose business operations can share a common
infrastructure, the architect can use TOGAF to create an integrated SOA with groups of services
that support the business activities.
From here on we assume that the scope is an enterprise of this kind. It could be self-standing or a
segment of a larger enterprise.

4.2.2 Level of Detail of Implementation Specification
How completely should the architecture define the implementation? At one extreme, it could
specify all of the systems to be produced, define all the projects that will produce them, and
create a detailed time plan for those projects. At the other extreme, it could just indicate areas
where work is needed, and suggest priorities for addressing them.
An SOA development could fall anywhere between these two extremes. For the kind of
enterprise SOA that we are considering here, it is likely that the architect would specify the
infrastructure and define the projects to implement it, with a detailed time plan. The architect
might do the same for some or all of the solutions. Alternatively, particularly where agility is
important, the architect might identify solutions, and perhaps specify initial versions of them, but
allow for additional solutions to be identified later, and for implementation projects to develop
further versions of the solutions without having to ask for changes to the architecture.
In the first case, solution project definition and planning is carried out in TOGAF Phase E
(Opportunities and Solutions) and Phase F (Migration Planning), and the architecture team has a
supervisory role for those projects in Phase G (Implementation Governance). In the second case,
the architecture team supervises solution project definition and planning, other than for those
specified initially, in Phase G rather than doing that definition and planning in Phases E and F.
(This, however, is not the TOGAF preferred methodology.)
Where the architecture does not specify all solutions in detail, the architect may wish to create an
architecture that provides a detailed definition of common infrastructure that can be referenced
by solution developments. There is a subtle distinction between such an architecture – an
enterprise reference architecture – and an enterprise architecture. The enterprise architecture
applies to a whole enterprise and identifies its components. The enterprise reference architecture
applies to each of the components of the enterprise and describes aspects that they have in
common. The architect would produce the enterprise reference architecture in parallel with the
enterprise architecture, but as a separate set of artifacts. The Open Group SOA Work Group
Reference Architecture, referred to above, is an example of a potential enterprise reference
architecture.
4.2.3 The Vision

The Architecture Vision includes a high-level description of the final architecture that is
envisaged.
There is an obvious difference between an SOA architecture description and a description of an

architecture of another style. The SOA description uses different language, with words such as
―service‖, ―composition‖, and ―contract‖, and it has different models, such as matrices showing
use of services by business processes and use of applications by services. The recently published
SOA Ontology can provide taxonomical and ontological assistance with the language of SOA.
Although it may not include the kinds of detailed model produced in Phases B, C, and D, the
high-level description produced in Phase A will reflect the service-oriented nature of the
architecture that is envisaged.

4.2.4 Stakeholders, Concerns, and Business Requirements
Phase A is followed by the three TOGAF phases that produce detailed architecture descriptions
for the Architecture Definition Document. In each of these phases, the architect:
 Develops models of the target system in the light of requirements
 Discusses concerns with stakeholders, using views of the system that are derived from the
models
 Refines the models
 Identifies further requirements to be addressed
This is an iterative process, repeated until the architect is satisfied that the concerns relevant to
the phase have been discussed and the requirements relevant to the phase are addressed.
The requirements to address, the stakeholders to consult, and the models and views to develop
vary from one architecture engagement to another. In Phase A of each engagement the architect
identifies the key stakeholders and their concerns, states the key business requirements to be
addressed, and considers which architecture views and viewpoints to develop.
There are concerns that are peculiar to SOA, or are more likely to arise in SOA developments. A
section of the SOA Source Book lists some areas of concern that the architect is likely to
encounter.
For additional information, see Appendix A. This describes changes to the standard TOGAF 9
Inputs, Steps, and Outputs appropriate for SOA. It also highlights areas of emphasis that the
architect doing SOA should especially consider.
4.3 TOGAF 9 Architecture Development (Phases B, C, and D)

In this section we consider the SOA impact on Phases B, C, and D, the TOGAF architecture
development phases.
Figure 8 depicts the TOGAF 9 Meta-model and its entity relationships. TOGAF is already well
suited for the adoption of SOA as it takes a service-centric approach to developing its
architecture domains. Here we specifically identify (outlined in red) those TOGAF entities that
already align with the SOA Work Group concepts.

1 © 2009 The Open Group, All Rights Reserved
Figure 8: TOGAF 9 Meta-Model with Key SOA Entities Highlighted
Key entities include:

 Event
 Process
 Business Service
 IS Service
 Platform Service
 Logical Application and Technology Component
 Physical Application and Technology Component
 Data Entity

 Service Quality
 Contract
 Location
 Information Entities
 Logical Information Components
Extensions of the meta-model are typically necessary to fully support SOA.
Figure 9 uses the TOGAF 9 conventions of ―extensions‖ to describe additional meta-model

entities that the architect should consider when developing SOAs. Each SOA ―extension‖ will be
described in the following ADM phase sections. In addition, for each domain is a description of
artifacts that are appropriate for the enterprise architect‘s development of an SOA.
Figure 9: TOGAF 9 Meta-Model with Relationships Updated with SOA Extensions
New and updated meta-model objects:

Extension Term
(Meta-Model Object) Description
Information Entity Information communicated about within the business.
Information Component An ideal grouping of Information Entities fulfilling one or more principles.
These will be the base for the structure of the SOA Information Exchange
Model (Canonical Information Model).
IS Service Contract An agreement between an IS service consumer and an IS service provider
that establishes functional and non-functional parameters for interaction.
SOA Solution The requirements and architecture (structure) of the entire solution
including process, information, service, and infrastructure requirements.
Service Quality Used as an attribute to services, components, and contracts. Defines the
non-functional requirements.
Location Used as an attribute to a service or component.
New and updated relations between meta-model objects:
Meta-Model Objects Relationship Name

Involved (from Figure 14) Description
Process Consists of The Process consists of a set of Business
Business Service Services and their related contracts.
IS Service Is realized through IS Services are structured into Logical

Logical Application Application Components (SOA services).
Component The structuring criteria are derived from the
long-term strategies of the organization.
Business Service Contract Describes interaction with The Information Entity describes the
Information Entity information passed in the contract (relation)
between two business services.
IS Service Contract Drives requirements for The IS Service Contract drives the
IS Service requirements of the IS Service by
formalizing the functional and non-
functional characteristics of IS Service
interaction with other services, external
applications, or users.
IS Service Contract Is derived from The IS Service Contract derives its
Business Service Contract specification from the Business Service
Contract and must in no way contradict or
inhibit the Business Service Contract from
being fulfilled.
Information Entity Consists of The Information Component is a structuring
Information Component of Information Entities. The structuring
criteria are derived from the long-term
strategies of the organization.
Information Entity Influences The Data Entities are derived from the
Data Entity Information Entities.

Meta-Model Objects Relationship Name
Involved (from Figure 14) Description
Information Component Influences The Logical Data Components are derived
Logical Data Component from the Logical Information Components.
IS Service Operates on The IS Service operates on Data Entities.

Data Entity Data Entities represent the data used
internally in a IS Service.
Logical Application Operates on The Logical Application Component
Component operates on Logical Data Components. The
Logical Data Component Logical Data Components are the internal
data structures proposed in an SOA Service
(Logical Application Component on
capability level).
Logical Application Requires The Logical Application Component (SOA
Component service requirements on capability level)
Logical Technology requires some Logical Technology
Component Components on which to run.
Logical Application Is realized by The Physical Application Component

Component explains with what the Logical Application
Physical Application Component should be implemented (e.g.,
Component wrapping of existing functionality or a new
development).
SOA Solution Consists of The SOA Solution consists of a set of
Physical application Physical Application Components.
Component
SOA Solution Utilizes The SOA Solution utilizes Physical
Physical Technology Technology Components (SOA
Component infrastructure; e.g., ESB, BPEL executors,
registry, repository, etc.).
The table above takes a ―TOGAF-centric‖ focus and is very appropriate for those architects
familiar with TOGAF. Note that we will use a ―UML-like‖ diagram in each of the following
phases that take an ―SOA architect‖ focus for those who may not be intimately familiar with
TOGAF, but will, hopefully, enlighten them to the advantages of utilizing the TOGAF
framework. The complete ―UML-like‖ diagram is shown in Figure 14.
4.4 Phase B: The Business Architecture

The Business Architecture aligns the enterprise's business processes, people, operations, and
projects with its overall strategy, providing a foundation on which to build the Information
Systems Architectures and the Technology Architecture. This is the first of the three TOGAF
phases that produce detailed architecture descriptions for the Architecture Definition Document.
The TOGAF 9 meta-model has been extended to include an SOA-specific ―Information Entity‖
from which the Business Vocabulary Catalog and an Information Component Model are derived.
This is depicted in Figure 10:

Figure 10: Phase B: Business Architecture Meta-Model Detail
In addition, the importance of the existing ―contracts‖ takes on significantly more importance in
SOA. Contracts formalize the functional and non-functional characteristics of a business service
interaction with other business services, external applications, or users. The contract details the
information exchanged and associated non-functional requirements such as response times and
availability. The non-functional requirements are modeled using the Service Quality object. The
contracts are used to collectively define the Service Quality objects including the functional and
non-functional requirements on the business services.
A Process is a set of Business Services and their contracts. One Business Service can participate
in more than one Process.
The starting point for the artifacts that are developed in this phase is the set of key business
requirements identified in Phase A and further detailed in this phase. For the kind of enterprise
SOA that we are discussing here, the architect should consider the following artifacts which are
particularly important for SOA because they contribute to the definition of SOA building blocks
in Phase C and Phase D.

Artifact Purpose Meta-Model Entities
Business Service This diagram shows all the business services Business Services, Contracts,
Interaction Diagram in scope and their relations and the Information Entity
information flowing between the business
services. It will indicate what business
services are commonly re-used by other
business services indicating opportunities for
possible re-use of supporting IS services. The
diagram will also be used to define business
processes and the relationships between those
business processes since each process is
composed by a subset of this model.
Business Process This is a set of diagrams that show the Subset of business service
Diagram business processes and their decomposition, model showing the Business
their interactions, and the information with Services and Contracts involved
which they are concerned. in the processes and the
Business Information passed
between the Business Services.
Business This is a list of the key terms used in This is a list of Information
Vocabulary Catalog describing the business processes and Entities and descriptions of
information. It is important that the Business those elements.
Architecture phase establishes the
information context for the software services,
as described in the Information Architecture
for SOA section of the Source Book, and a
catalog of business terms is an important part
of this context. The architect can derive the
business vocabulary while developing the
business service model.
Business Services This is a list of the enterprise's business List of Business Services and
Catalog services and their functional and non- their Service Qualities
functional requirements. It is used to analyze
the non-functional requirements.
Business Service/ To understand where the business services Business Service, Location
Location Catalog needs to be executed.
Event/Process To understand which process is run in Lists Events and their effected
Catalog relation to an event. Business Process
Contract/Service To understand the non-functional properties Lists Contracts and their
Quality Catalog of a contract. relevant Service Qualities
Business Service To show relations between business services. Business Services on both axes
Interaction Matrix and Contracts in the cross-point.
Business Service/ To show how information entities are used by Business Services and
Information Matrix business services and to find faults in that Information Entities
(CRUD) model.

Artifact Purpose Meta-Model Entities
Information To define the logical structure of the Information Components and
Component Model information in the organization. It can be their relations
used as an input to the exchange model
defining the input and outputs from SOA
services.
In addition, the standard TOGAF 9 models and artifacts should be considered.
It is vital that the appropriate views are produced that enable the architect to demonstrate to
stakeholders how their SOA-specific concerns relating to the Business Architecture are
addressed.
The level of detail of the business process analysis will depend on the circumstances of the
architectural engagement. The projects that develop solutions that instantiate the architecture
will perform the business analysis at the most detailed levels. It is the architect‘s responsibility to
select an appropriate level of detail for the enterprise architecture business analysis, first as a
basis for specifying solutions, and then to enable their successful development.
In doing this the architect addresses the requirements that can be satisfied by the Business
Architecture. The remaining architecture requirements will be addressed in Phases C and D.
4.5 Phase C: The Information Systems Architectures (Applications

and Data)
The objectives of Phase C are to define the major types and sources of data necessary to support
the business, and to define the major kinds of application system necessary to process the data
and support the business.
The phase is split into two sub-phases, Data Architecture and Applications Architecture. SOA
makes little difference to the Data Architecture sub-phase, but it has a major impact on the
Applications Architecture.
As well as affecting the artifacts that are developed, the views that are produced, the concerns
that are discussed, and the requirements that are identified, SOA affects the way that the
architect does the gap analysis between Baseline and Target Architectures in Phase C.
With SOA, the traditional software applications are replaced by sets of loosely-coupled services.
Existing applications should still be described, as should any new applications of a traditional
kind that the architect decides is required, and these applications should be included in the
applications portfolio. In addition, areas of application functionality that are covered by services
should be identified. These will (probably as part of the implementation) be decomposed into
services, which will be included in the services portfolio.

But SOA is not only about services, it is also the solutions created by using combinations of
services. These solutions are usually structured using the Business Processes and Business
Services defined in Phase B.
For SOA, as with Phase B, the Business Architecture, Phase C, the Information Systems
Architecture, has extended or highlighted the TOGAF 9 meta-model to include SOA-specific
relations. These include the IS Service Contract which drives requirements for related IS
Services. The IS Service Contract derives its information content and non-functional
requirements from the business services and business service contracts.
These are depicted in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Phase C: Information Systems Architecture Meta-Model Detail
Using the artifacts described in the table below, the architect should develop views that enable
the demonstration to stakeholders of how their SOA-specific concerns relating to the
Applications Architecture are addressed. (Models that enable the architect to discuss concerns
relating to the Data Architecture should also be developed as part of Phase C. These are similar
to the models that would be developed for a traditional architecture based on software
applications.)
In doing this, the architect addresses the requirements that can be satisfied by the Information
Systems Architectures. The remaining architecture requirements will be addressed in Phase D,
Technology Architecture.

Artifact Purpose Meta-Model Entity Usage
IS Service This shows potential SOA services IS Services and the Contracts between
Interaction Diagram (IS Services) and the interactions them. The Contracts indicate what
between them, and their use of business information is communicated.
information. It is used to show the Preferably the Service Quality entity for
full set of requirements for the both IS Services and Contracts are
solution and the relationships derived from the Business Services and
between the requirements. their Contracts and related Service
Qualities.
Business Process/ This matrix shows the relation Business Process and its relation to IS
IS Service Matrix between each Business Process and Service(s)
the IS Services supporting the
process. It is used to show the full
set of requirements for SOA
Services for a given Business
Process.
IS Service Contract The catalog lists all IS Services, List of IS Services and their related
Catalog their Contracts, and the related Service Qualities
Service Qualities to enable analysis Additionally, IS Service Contracts for
of the non-functional requirements each IS Service are included.
(e.g., security, performance, loading,
availability, policies, etc.) for
potential SOA Services. This
catalog is an important input to the
Service Portfolio Management
process in SOA Governance.
IS Service/ This catalog connects IS Services IS Service(s), related Contracts, and
Application (potential SOA Services), Contracts, Service Qualities connected with as-is
(existing) Catalog and Service Qualities with existing Physical Application Components
applications (as-is Physical
Application Components). It is used
to specify wrapping scenarios on
existing applications and to analyze
non-functional requirements.
IS Service/Data This matrix shows what data is IS Services and its related Data Entities
Entity Matrix handled by potential SOA Services
(IS Services). It is used to identify
potential data handling SOA
Services.
Logical SOA This matrix shows the relationship IS Services, Logical Application
Component Matrix between the Logical SOA Components, and Principles & Business
Components (Logical Application Drivers (used to find criteria to perform
Components) and the potential SOA grouping)
Services (IS Services). It is used to A Logical SOA Component (Logical
structure Logical Components from Application Component) would be a
the requirements. candidate for an SOA Service on
Capability-level architectures.

Logical SOA This diagram shows the relations Logical Application Components and
Solution Diagram between the Logical SOA Contracts and their Service Qualities
Components (Logical Application Logical Technology Components and
Components) and other logical their mapping to Contracts are used for
solutions (Logical Application the interface mechanisms.
Components). It is used to show and
analyze the functional and non-
functional requirements of the
interfaces between solutions.
IS Service This matrix shows the services IS Service, Logical Application
Distribution Matrix distributed on physical locations to Component, Physical Application
fulfill legal or other requirements. Component, and Location
The purpose is to show and analyze
whether there are any location
requirements on services. This can
be done on either IS Services or
Logical Application Components.
For an enterprise architecture, these models and artifacts would typically show groups of
services that support the business processes identified in Phase B, rather than individual services,
and the Service Contract and Policy Catalog would list generic contracts and policies that apply
to different types of service. The architect will generally leave the identification of individual
services to the projects that develop solutions that instantiate the architecture.
In each of Phases B, C, and D the architect performs a gap analysis between the Baseline and
Target Architectures to determine what needs to be done to move from the Baseline to the
Target. For Phases B and D, and the Data Architecture sub-phase of Phase C, this is not much
affected by SOA. For the Applications Architecture sub-phase of Phase C, however, SOA makes
a difference to the way that the architect performs the gap analysis.
The architecture building blocks defined in Phase C will include traditional applications and
groups of services covering areas of application functionality. Both kinds of building block
should be included in the gap analysis. However, it may be the intent that a group of services be
implemented as a ―wrapper‖ over existing applications. This situation, which is special for SOA,
should be indicated in the gap analysis, as well as situations where old applications are to be
removed or replaced, or new applications are to be added.
4.6 Phase D: The Technology Architecture

The Technology Architecture phase seeks to map application components defined in the
Applications Architecture phase into a set of technology components, which represent software
and hardware components, available from the market or configured within the organization into

technology platforms. For SOA, this means defining the software and hardware infrastructure
needed to support the portfolio of services.
Note that the description of Phase D in TOGAF refers to ―services‖ and ―services portfolios‖ in
a number of places; this use of terms does not align to the ―portfolio services‖ or the ―services
portfolio― described in the SOA Source Book. The word ―service‖ has been in use in IT for
many years, and with a broad range of meanings. It is used in the description of Phase D in
TOGAF to refer to the concept of service of the TOGAF Technical Reference Model, which was
developed long before SOA. For SOA, portfolio service building blocks should be defined in
Phase C.
Phase D is the last of the three TOGAF phases (Phase B, C, & D) that produce detailed
architecture descriptions for the Architecture Definition Document. The starting point for the
models that the architect develops in this phase is the set of key business requirements identified
in Phase A plus the detailed and elaborated business requirements identified in Phase B and the
information systems requirements identified in Phase C.
As with Phases B and C, the SOA Work Group has extended the TOGAF 9 meta-model for
SOA-specific entities. In this case, only a Logical Technology Component Model has been
added, as depicted in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Technology Architecture Meta-Model Detail
For SOA, the Technology Architecture defines the software and hardware infrastructure needed
to support the portfolio of services. A starting point for the Technology Architecture is The Open
Group SOA Reference Architecture which contains most platform services possible for an SOA
infrastructure. Each organization will need to customize the SOA Reference Architecture to their
needs.
The Open Group has produced additional information concerning adapting an organization‘s
infrastructure for service-orientation, including the Service Oriented Infrastructure Reference
Model which can be consulted for guidance.

Infrastructure architecture is regarded by many as one of the three pillars of information
technology, together with Business Architecture and Applications Architecture. Service-oriented
infrastructure results from applying the principles of service-orientation to this technology
architectural pillar. It is related to SOA which is most commonly referred to as part of the
application architecture pillar.
Using the models, artifacts, SOA Reference Architecture, and SOI Reference Model, the
architect should develop views that enable the architect to demonstrate to stakeholders how their
SOA-specific concerns relating to the Technology Architecture are addressed. Some SOA-
specific models and artifacts are suggested below:

Logical Technology This diagram is used to show and Platform Service (Capability),
Architecture Diagram analyze the instance of The Open Logical Technology Component
Group SOA Reference Architecture. It (ABB)
will contain all architectural building
blocks and capabilities deemed
necessary for the SOA solution.
Logical Application This matrix is used to show and Logical Application Components
and Technology analyze the relations between the and their relations to Logical
Matrix Logical Application Components and Technology Components including
the Logical Technology Components to derivations of the Service Qualities.
ensure the architect understands what
technology will be used for the Logical
Application Components. It will also
be used to derive and validate the non-
functional requirements for the
Technical Components.
In doing this, the architect adds further requirements to those identified in Phases A, B, and C,
and addresses the requirements that can be satisfied by the Technology Architecture.
All architecture requirements should have been addressed by the end of this phase. If there are
still outstanding architecture requirements, then the architect should go back to Phase B or Phase
C to address them. Implementation requirements will be addressed by the projects that are
identified in Phase E.
4.7 Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions

The Opportunities and Solutions phase identifies delivery vehicles (projects, programs, or
portfolios) that effectively deliver the Target Architecture defined in previous phases. It reviews
the target business objectives and capabilities, consolidates the gaps from Phases B to D, and

organizes groups of building blocks to address these capabilities. It then generates an outline
Implementation and Migration Strategy.
The identification of service and solution portfolios is a key task for SOA. The questions of what
service and solution portfolios the enterprise will have, and how they will be managed, should be
considered in this phase. (For the kind of enterprise SOA that we are considering here, it is quite
possible that there would be a single service portfolio and a single solution portfolio.)
A delivery option that should be considered particularly for SOA is the use of services provided
by external companies, as opposed to the development of services in-house or the acquisition of
software products that perform the services.
The specific SOA solution is an addition to the TOGAF 9 meta-model that crosses both Phases E
and F and is depicted in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions Meta-Model Detail
The implementation projects that are identified, and the Implementation and Migration Strategy,
will depend on the decisions taken on the level of detail of implementation specification when
the architect team scoped the architecture development in Phase A.
As with the previous phases, there are a number of models, artifacts, and guidelines that are
SOA-specific. Those for Phase E might include:

Physical SOA Solution This matrix shows all the components IS Services, Physical Application
Matrix of a SOA solution. Components, Platform Services,
Physical Technology Components

Physical SOA Solution This diagram shows the relations Physical Application Components
Diagram between the physical SOA solution and Contracts and their Service
(Physical Application Components) Qualities
and other solutions (Physical Physical Technology components
Application Components). It is used to and their mapping to Contracts
show and analyze the functional and are used for the interface
non-functional requirements of the mechanisms.
interfaces between solutions.
Physical Service This matrix shows which existing IS Services, Physical Application
Solution Matrix services are re-used, which services Components (as-is SOA services
could be provided by external services for re-use), other Physical
(SaaS) and which services need to be Application Components (new
developed as wrappings of and existing applications to be
new/existing applications and which wrapped) and new Physical
need to be developed. Application Components (new
It is an input to the SOA Governance services to be developed or
Service Portfolio Management process. purchased externally)
Application Guidelines This document provides the guidelines

on how to develop the SOA solution
and services. Suggestions of possible
guidelines can be found in Appendix A
of the SOA Governance Framework.
Physical Technology This diagram is used to show and Platform Service, Logical
Architecture diagram analyze the physical technical solution Technology Component, Physical
for the SOA infrastructure. Technology Component
Physical Application and This matrix is used to show and Physical Application Components
Technology Matrix analyze the physical infrastructure used and their relations to Physical
to run the physical application on and Technology Components
to ensure that the non-functional including derivations of the
requirements are derived properly and Service Qualities
understood.
Technology Portfolio This is a list of products and kinds of Physical Application Components
Catalog product that will be used in the and their relation with Service
implementation, including SOA run- Qualities
time infrastructure, SOA development
environment, service component
technology, and service interface
(portal, channel, etc.) technology. It
will also include non-functional
requirements.
Technology Guidelines This document provides the guidelines
on how to use SOA infrastructure.
Suggestions of possible guidelines can
be found in the Appendix A of the
SOA Governance Framework.

4.8 Phase F: Migration Planning

This phase results in a detailed plan, produced in cooperation with departments responsible for
concerned enterprise activities (such as the PMO, Operations, Sales and Production, Delivery,
etc.), for the implementation of the architecture.
The implementation governance model is reviewed in Phase F in order to ensure that it is in

place before the next phase – Implementation Governance – commences. SOA requires
particular governance rules and procedures. The governance and support strategy is reviewed in
the Preliminary Phase. If it needs to be updated for SOA, then this should be done before
implementation starts. The architect should check in Phase F that the governance model is fit for
SOA, and ensure that it has been updated if necessary before proceeding to Phase G.
4.9 Phase G: Implementation Governance

This phase involves participation of architects in implementation governance, to improve the
quality of the implementations generally and in particular to ensure conformance with the
architecture.
The activities performed in the Implementation Governance phase will depend in part on the
decisions taken on the level of detail of implementation specification when the architect team
scoped the architecture development in Phase A.
Again, as in the Preliminary Phase, the architect has a wealth of information available from The
Open Group SOA Governance Reference Model. See the Introduction to SOA Governance and
related sections of the SOA Source Book for further information on SOA governance.
4.10 Phase H: Architecture Change Management

Phase H is concerned with reviewing and updating the architecture and the architecture process
itself. This includes assessing the performance of the architecture and making recommendations
for change.
It is at this point that the architect is likely to decide to re-visit the activities of the Preliminary
Phase. Where SOA has not previously been used within an enterprise, Phase H of an architecture
development is an opportunity to assess the contribution that it could make, and to consider
adopting the principle of service-orientation.

5 Summary
In summary, there are a number of SOA methods, tools, and reference materials available to help
the enterprise architect develop Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). The Open Group
standards and publications are suggested. Some are directly focused on SOA, such as the SOA
Source Book, OSIMM, or the SOA Governance Vitality Method (SGVM); others are not
directly focused but regularly useful, such as outputs of the Security Forum and the Jericho
Forum in areas of security.
Using TOGAF to create SOA requires adapting TOGAF to address the requirements of a
particular style. Addressing a style will require identification of:
 Key meta-model entities
 Extensions to the content meta-model
 Key artifacts
 Style-specific reference materials and maturity models
The adaption of an architecture capability to support SOA requires considerable activity in the
Preliminary Phase of TOGAF. These activities and SOA specific Open Group SOA Working
Group tools include:
 Adapting the principle of service-orientation
 Determining organization readiness for SOA (OSIMM)
 Governance: The Open Group SOA Governance Model and Vitality Method
 Partitions: utilize a specialist Center of Excellence (CoE) to support SOA
In the rest of the TOGAF ADM phases what changes is how an architecture is described,
analyzed, and documented. During an iteration of the ADM the practitioner needs to consider the
key meta-model entities identified above, and the artifacts identified above.
At different levels of granularity the purpose of the ADM cycle will vary. In strategic-level work
the purpose is identifying whether SOA is needed, and in which segments. In segment-level
work describing the structure and capability requirements of SOA takes place. Finally, in the
capability-level work, the purpose is to identify and describe the requirements of the SOA
services that will be available.
When delivering SOA with TOGAF, the practitioner should never lose sight of the final
objective: SOA solutions that address managing the enterprise's complexity and provide business
agility.
Figure 14 is a summary view of the UML-like representation of the SOA-TOGAF meta-model.

It is presented for the architect who can readily interpret standards-based models. This UML-like

representation only shows the entities and relationships necessary for SOA. Where the SOA fits
within a broader architecture, the TOGAF meta-model includes additional entities and
relationships. This model highlights the SOA-specific meta-model entities and their key
relationships.

Figure 14: SOA-TOGAF Meta-Model

A Summary of Adjustments to TOGAF Phases
This section provides highlighted summary adjustments to the TOGAF Objectives, Inputs, Steps,
and Outputs to support producing SOAs.
Figure 15: Preliminary Phase Adjustments

Figure 16: Phase A (Architecture Vision) Adjustments

Figure 17: Phase B (Business Architecture) Adjustments

Figure 18: Phase C (Information Systems Architecture) Adjustments

Figure 19: Phase D (Technology Architecture) Adjustments

Figure 20: Phase E (Opportunities & Solutions) Adjustments

B Relations to the SOA Work Group Projects
B.1 SOA Reference Architecture
Overview Meta-Model
Figure 21: Relationship of SOA Reference Architecture to SOA Meta-Model Entities
Description Relation
The Platform Service and the Platform Model created in Phase D define the platform functional
and non-functional requirements of the architecture. They define the SOA Reference
Architecture capabilities needed. These requirements are used to instantiate the SOA Reference
Architecture. It would be a good idea to iterate between the IS Services (process, application,
and data) and the SOA Reference Architecture capabilities to make sure that the correct
capabilities are defined together with the non-functional requirements for those capabilities.

B.2 SOA Governance
Overview Meta-Model – Service Portfolio
Figure 22: Relationship of SOA Governance to SOA Meta-Model Entities
Description Service Portfolio Management Relation
The Business Services gives the service Portfolio Management a first idea on possible SOA
services.
The Logical Application Components define the SOA service requirements at a more detailed
level of granularity. Both Business Services and Logical Application Components are used by
the SOA Governance – Service Portfolio Management process to plan the long-term portfolio of
SOA services for the organization.
B.3 Overview Meta-Model – Solution Portfolio
Figure 23: Relationship of SOA Portfolio Management to SOA Meta-Model Entities

Description Solution Portfolio Management Relation
The Physical Application Component Model describes the future application landscape. Each
Physical Application Component describes a component (e.g., SOA service) of a possible future
SOA solution. The SOA solution consists of one or more Physical Application Components.
B.4 SOA and Security
Overview Meta-Model
Figure 24: Relationship of SOA Security to SOA Meta-Model Entities
The security requirements are first defined in Phase B on both the Business Services and the
Contracts between the Business Services. These security requirements are then transposed into
the security requirements on the IS Services and subsequently on the Platform Services.
The security requirements are then input to a detailed design phase (part of implementation
projects) for both the SOA solutions and the SOA Reference Architecture.

B.5 Legacy to SOA
Overview Meta-Model
Figure 25: Relationship of SOA Security to SOA Meta-Model Entities
The Processes, Business Services, and Information System Services define the requirements on
the legacy systems.

C Architecture Levels and the Meta-Model
C.1 Strategic Level

 The contracts between services are less important.
 The contracts between components are less important.
 It is important to identify areas where SOA will make a great impact so that they can be
prioritized when creating segment architectures. Some segments might not be using SOA
as a solution pattern at all.
 It is possible to have a top-level view of what type of SOA reference architecture would
be needed in the different segments on a logical level and maybe some indication of what
product families to use.
C.2 Segment Level

 The contracts between application and data services in the different segments are
important so identify requirements for segment external SOA services.
 The contracts between components in the different segments are important so identify
which components shall deliver the external services.
 The contracts between application and data services in the same segment are important to
identify requirements for segment internal cross-capability SOA services.
 The contracts between components in the same segment are important so identify which
components shall deliver the cross-capability services.
 The application and data services are important to identify requirements for similar SOA
services cross-segment.
 The SOA reference architecture will be instantiated and a more detailed physical solution
suggested.
C.3 Capability Level

 The application and data services are important to find re-usable services in the service
portfolio and possible change requests on the service portfolio.
 The contracts between the process service and the application or data services are
important to identify SOA services.

 A detailed logical and physical SOA reference architecture with the needs of the
capability will be defined that can be expanded for the next capability project.

Index
Applications Architecture ........ 35 interoperability ........................ 14
architectural style .................... 14 Jericho Forum ......................... 44
architecture capability........ 24, 44 location transparency............... 14
architecture principle ............... 18 maturity assessment ................ 19
architecture project .................. 25 open standards......................... 14
Architecture Repository ........... 22 OSIMM ............................. 19, 44
Architecture Vision ................. 27 Preliminary Phase ................... 17
building block.......................... 38 Security Forum ....................... 44
business analysis ..................... 35 segment architecture ................ 26
Business Architecture .............. 32 service-orientation ........ 14, 17, 18
business process ...................... 14 SGRM..................................... 21
Center of Excellence .......... 24, 44 SGVM ............................... 21, 44
CoE ......................................... 24 SOA ............................. 11, 14, 44
contract ................................... 33 SOA Work Group ................... 12
Data Architecture .................... 35 strategic architecture ............... 26
enterprise architecture ........ 14, 27 TOGAF.............................. 11, 16
enterprise reference architecture27 TOGAF ADM ......................... 16
gap analysis ............................. 38 UML ....................................... 45
governance ................... 14, 20, 43 wrapper ................................... 38
implementation ........................ 27

TOGAF SOA Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOGAF SOA Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOGAF SOA Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Group Guide

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented

All rights reserved.

Open Group Guide

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures

Document Number: G113

Published by The Open Group, May 2011.

The Open Group

or by electronic mail to:

ii Open Group Guide (2011)

3 Service-Oriented Architecture Defined......................................................... 14

4 Using TOGAF for Enterprise SOA ............................................................... 16

A Summary of Adjustments to TOGAF Phases ............................................... 47

B Relations to the SOA Work Group Projects.................................................. 53

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures iii

C Architecture Levels and the Meta-Model ..................................................... 57

iv Open Group Guide (2011)

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures v

The Open Group is a vendor-neutral and technology-neutral consortium, whose vision of

Further information on The Open Group is available at www.opengroup.org.

More information is available at www.opengroup.org/certification.

vi Open Group Guide (2011)

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures vii

viii Open Group Guide (2011)

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures ix

x Open Group Guide (2011)

This Guide is designed for use by:

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 11

2.1 The Open Group SOA Work Group

12 Open Group Guide (2011)

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 13

Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural style that supports service-orientation.

Service-orientation is a way of thinking in terms of services and service-based development and

A service is a logical representation of a repeatable business activity that has a specified

An architectural style is the combination of distinctive features in which architecture is

3.1.1 SOA Features

Implementations are enterprise environment-specific – they are constrained or enabled by

3.1.2 How Enterprise Architecture Supports Service-Orientation

14 Open Group Guide (2011)

Enterprise architecture becomes a foundation for service-orienting an organization because it

Without enterprise architecture, the risk may increase for:

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 15

16 Open Group Guide (2011)

4.1 The Preliminary Phase

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 17

4.1.1 The Principle of Service-Orientation

18 Open Group Guide (2011)

Figure 2: Open Group SOA Maturity Model

From here on we assume that the principle of service-orientation is adopted.

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 19

Figure 3: SOA Governance Supports IT and Enterprise Architecture Governance

20 Open Group Guide (2011)

Figure 4: SOA Governance Reference Model

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 21

4.1.4 Initial Architecture Repository and the SOA Reference Architecture

22 Open Group Guide (2011)

A summary graphic that describes the SOA Reference Architecture follows:

Figure 6: SOA Reference Architecture

The nine ―layers‖ are described as follows:

Using TOGAF to Define and Govern Service-Oriented Architectures 23