TOGAF and ITIL are both frameworks that follow a process approach. They are both based upon best practice and are supported by a large community of users. However, whereas TOGAF is focused on Enterprise Architecture, ITIL focuses on Service Management. In the years of development of these frameworks, they have described an ever-growing change of domain, from IT to business processes. In their final versions they appear to have entered into each other’s domains
This paper explains that it is not a question of whether these models describe similar processes and that one has to make a choice between them. It is more important that the people who are concerned with Service Management understand TOGAF and that Enterprise Architects understand ITIL – because in most large companies worldwide, both will be used next to each other.
White PaperSeptember 2009TOGAF" 9 and ITIL V3Two Frameworks WhitepaperTom van Sante and Jeroen Ermers, Getronics ConsultingUntitled DocumentContents 1 Management Summary 32 Introduction 43 Organizational development 54 History of ITIL 65 History of TOGAF 76 The framework dilemma 87 Where ITIL V3 and TOGAF meet 98 Conclusions 139 Appendix 1410 The authors, literature and further information 16Untitled DocumentThis white paper describes the development of TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) and ITIL as a background to discussions about the potential overlap in the processes they both describe. It does not describe the models themselves. In the further information section of this white paper, there are references for readers who would like further details about these frameworks.The development of information systems in large organizations, and in multipart supply-and-demand chains, has become complex and exible. The way in which systems are being designed and managed depends increasingly on a structured approach. Best practice models are based on the experience of day-to-day users and therefore they support their needs. Their development follows the requirements of the organizations that use these models. In a way they change from descriptions of best practice to theoretical models on how processes should work in practice.TOGAF and ITIL are both frameworks that follow a process approach. They are both based upon best practice and are supported by a large community of users. However, whereas TOGAF is focused on Enterprise Architecture, ITIL focuses on Service Management. In the years of development of these frameworks, they have described an ever-growing change of domain, from IT to business processes. In their nal versions they appear to have entered into each other s domains. In this paper we try to explain that it is not a question of whether these models describe similar processes and that one has to make a choice between them. It is more important that the people who are concerned with Service Management understand TOGAF and that Enterprise Architects understand ITIL because in most large companies worldwide, both will be used next to each other. As most IT architects and IT Service Managers probably have more knowledge of TOGAF than ITIL, and vice versa, this white paper will help them see and understand how these two frameworks are interrelated. Maybe even more important is how the other framework can enhance the value of your own framework.Management Summary 1 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 3Untitled Document4 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3In May 2007, ITIL Version 3 (V3) was released and in 2009 TOGAF 9 succeeded TOGAF 8.1.1. Both frameworks have a large group of users and the continued progression of their content shows that the end of their development is not yet in sight. As a result of this large group of users, the number of companies that work with both models is growing. Questions arise on how to use these models next to each other or how to make a choice between them.In this white paper these questions are answered by explaining the background and history of these frameworks. We need to understand that these frameworks are both based on practice and that their strength is in the common vocabulary they provide to professionals all over the world. However, it should not be assumed that these frameworks are meant to be followed blindly, as every organization will nd its own method of implementation in their day-to-day operations.Although these frameworks describe areas of common interest, it is not necessarily the case that they do that from the same perspective. Basically, ITIL was developed to support Service Management and TOGAF was developed to support organizations in the development of Enterprise Architecture. The focus of ITIL is therefore on services, whereas TOGAF is focused on architecture. However, since services have become part of fast-changing organizations, the prediction of what will be needed tomorrow is of growing interest to the people that deliver these services. Conversely, architecture has changed from a rather static design discipline to an organization-encompassing discipline, and is only useful if the rest of the organization is using it to enable all developments to be aligned to each other.Service Management has matured from a mere operational task to one sometimes even practised at CIO-level. Architecture has developed from a technical discipline to one ful lling a role of trusted advisor to senior-level management. Therefore, the question of identifying where one of them begins and the other one ends has changed over the years. A common way to look at their domains of interest, and their role in the organization as a whole, is depicted in Figure 1.Introduction 2 Figure 1 The domains and roles of ITIL and TOGAF within an organizationUntitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 5We are currently in a time when information is being spread within and between organizations with almost no restrictions. New possibilities will make this ow of information grow enormously. Information technology has become a complex matter in which not every individual will nd their way. IT departments have the task of controlling a constantly growing complexity. Adjusting to rapid change has become a dominant factor in controlling IT developments.The early IT departments were extensions of the administrative or, more commonly, the accounting departments within organizations. They operated more or less in a standalone mode and did not connect to the primary business processes. IT organizations were organized in silos, and were described as the network team or the system management team. It was in that era that standards for Service Management and architecture were born. The speed of change in those times was a lot slower than today. There was enough time to plan and organize processes to last for a long period of time. Quality was the magic word and the rst improvements in organizations were focused on methods to improve that. A large number of organizations focused on describing their activities in order to make the outcomes predictable. However, that was only possible in times of relatively slow change, and these activities were focusing more on the organizations themselves than on the customers involved. The improvements and actions were activity-based. The next step in improving organizations was therefore focusing on customer satisfaction, promoting the general idea that services need customers to have a raison d tre . As business started to recognize the potential of IT for supporting primary business functions, IT became increasingly entangled in the business itself. Initially this occurred between the nancial and business functions; and then later between business functions, thereby increasing the added value of the products and services the business provided to its customers. Nowadays the information ow supported by IT has crossed both geographical and organizational boundaries as both suppliers and customers have started to participate in this information ow, thus further increasing the added value. IT has also provided the means to enter markets hitherto inaccessible. A quick glance at the recent credit crisis demonstrates how much organizations are affected by the problems of powerful and dominant players in these information networks. Both amongst organizations and within a company, departments have to rely on each other. Companies continuously undertake centralization and decentralization efforts in order to maintain their competitive advantage. At the same time, outsourcing information systems that support core processes can cause dif culties to a company in the development of its future information systems and service capability.The trend towards organizing work based on best practice models is a result of this growing complexity. Apart from this complexity, the possibilities of an international market supported by the internet have forced organizations to improve their productivity. Despite the fact that best practice models have been helpful, their use conceals a fundamental problem. The fragmented way in which IT services are being built over different departments, or even by external parties, makes the development and day-to-day management of these services even more complex. This explains the more holistic approach of existing models to keep a grip on all elements in the supply chain. All-encompassing models try to harness this development, but it will be impossible to direct all the players in the network. Therefore the common language part of TOGAF and ITIL are more important than the completeness of the processes they describe.Today s IT is often a combination of many components that need to be aligned seamlessly in order to be conceived as a service to the end user. Organizational development 3 Untitled Document6 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3ITIL was rst released to the public in the late eighties. ITIL was created by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), an of ce of the British government, and as such was and still is vendor-neutral. ITIL V1 consisted of 42 separate books. The rationale behind ITIL was, of course, to describe best practices concerning the management of IT. Those best practices were mainly based on experience in data centres running big mainframes; at this time the PC was just being introduced and was not yet a common sight in the of ce or in everyday life. This rst set of ITIL books was, as can be expected from a rst version, somewhat ambiguous in its set up: the distinction between processes, work activities and organizational units was not very clear. Some of the books concentrated on processes (e.g. the books on change management or problem management), some focused on both process and organization (e.g. Helpdesk), whilst a third group described a set of related activities without actually being a process (e.g. network management). As a general rule, the 42 books of ITIL V1 can be characterized using terms such as data centre , internal IT perspective , and the focus on sets of related activities . In the early nineties this rst set of ITIL books was extended, with three books written from an altogether different perspective, oriented towards the business. These books were entitled: In Times of Radical Change, Understanding and Improving, and Surviving IT Infrastructure Transitions. In the year 2000, ITIL V2 was launched. For this version of ITIL, authors were additionally sought from the rapidly growing worldwide IT Service Management community. In this revised version, related processes were bundled together in separate books, thus decreasing the number of books from 42 to eight. ITIL V2 distinguishes itself from its predecessor mainly by emphasizing the need for close relationships with both the customer and the supplier, thereby adopting a more service-oriented approach. The core focus of ITIL V2 can be de ned as being truly process-oriented, but still coming from a mainly internal IT perspective. ITIL V2 helped organizations to improve the quality of their services and became an important aid in implementing formal quality systems such as ISO/IEC 9000 and EFQM. ITIL V2 also included best practice guidance on how to use and apply ITIL. In a separate volume, entitled Planning to Implement Service Management, detailed guidance and concepts were introduced and explained with regard to management of change. Instead of being solely a description of an IT utopia (as adopted in V1), V2 provided guidance on how to actually get there. By the time of the introduction of V2, ITIL had become a worldwide de facto standard for IT Service Management. This was re ected not only in the large number of people following ITIL training courses and the growth of itSMF, but also in the adaptation of ITIL by the British Standards Institute. This involved the incorporation of the ideas behind ITIL in the BSI standard BS 15000 (now ISO/IEC 20000). In 2007, a mere seven years after the rst release of V2, ITIL V3 was introduced. This version of ITIL introduced the lifecycle principle, whereby the provisioning of services was considered to be a continuous process in which new services are brought into existence whilst others are phased out. Instead of focusing on the service itself, in ITIL V3 the focus now lay on this cycle of life, renewal and alas decommissioning of services. Once again the number of books was reduced; and now only ve remain. The ITIL processes in this version were, not surprisingly, brought together based on the place they occupied in the lifecycle. As it was recognized that the birth of a new service (or, for that matter, the adaptation of an existing service), was almost always triggered by business needs, alignment to the primary business processes got to play a much bigger part than in the previous versions of ITIL. Furthermore, IT was increasingly considered to be a strategic asset to businesses. Therefore, ITIL V3 placed much greater emphasis on de ning and implementing a Service Strategy. As this is quite a new concept to IT Service Management, best practices in this area were not abundant, and the adaptation of less mature practices to describe Service Strategy concepts resulted. Thus, one of the big differences between the two previous versions and ITIL V3 is that V3 adopted a greater business-focused perspective; one based on the philosophy of Don t ask what the business can do for you, ask what you can do for the business. ITIL V1 and V2 hardly contain any references to architecture as a concept, method or framework. For example, in the book IT Infrastructure Management (ITIL V2) the word architecture is frequently used, but only in the sense of a design, and not in the sense that is used in both ITIL V3 and TOGAF 9. ITIL V3 contains numerous references to architecture, albeit not in a very unequivocal way. It is clear that the development of ITIL has been strongly in uenced by the development of organizations in general. Furthermore, its scope has grown to areas even outside of IT to enable IT services to keep in line with constantly changing business needs.With the updated core of ITIL V3 publications, an updated quali cation scheme has been introduced, which includes four levels: Foundation Level, Intermediate Level (Lifecycle Stream and Capability Stream), ITIL Expert and ITIL Master. The quali cation scheme for ITIL V2 possesses only three levels: Foundation, Practitioner and Manager. History of ITIL 4 Untitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 7As with ITIL, TOGAF also has a long history. It was developed and is currently maintained as a standard by The Open Group: a vendor- and technology-neutral consortium focused on a diverse range of open standards and af liated certi cation programmes, and also for advancing the profession of Enterprise Architecture. The rst version of TOGAF, developed in 1995, was based on the US Department of Defense s Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM). Following on from this, The Open Group Architecture Forum has developed successive versions of TOGAF at regular intervals and published each one on The Open Group public website.Each version of the TOGAF standard is developed collaboratively by the members of the Architecture Forum currently more than 200 corporate members, including vendor and customer organizations. The development is carried out by architecture practitioners, with the content based on proven best practices that evolved within the participating member companies.The rst seven versions of TOGAF addressed technology architecture based on the adoption of architecture in businesses at the time each was written. In 2002, Version 8 (the Enterprise Edition ) was published, and was followed by a series of improvements to Version 8.1 in 2003 and Version 8.1.1 in 2006. It expanded the scope of TOGAF from a purely technology architecture to an Enterprise Architecture, by including business and information systems architecture in the new version.In 2004, The Open Group launched a TOGAF certi cation programme for individuals and organizations. Anybody who wanted to be certi ed as a practitioner of TOGAF could either attend a certi ed training course presented by a training provider or complete an online examination. There has been a popular uptake of this programme by architects globally, with more than 9,400 certi ed practitioners as of January 2009, emphasizing that TOGAF is one of the leading architecture frameworks worldwide.The role of architecture in organizations has changed from a focus on design, towards one which attempts to explain the details of the existing and future state of certain parts of the IT capability in an organization. It has increasingly become a process to help organizations make the right decisions about their future and to show them how to get there. By combining input from different stakeholders, architects can help organizations to reduce the complexity of today s IT and organizational landscape. The growing success of a framework such as TOGAF underlines this development. TOGAF was one of the rst models with a strong emphasis on this process approach to architecture in the organization. In fact, architecture must be seen as an organization-wide process that will be directed by management, with the support of the enterprise architect. The (enterprise) architect has therefore changed from a technical individual to someone with organizational sensitivity.In TOGAF s latest version, alongside a higher level of detail in the description of the architecture, there is increasing re ection on the use of the architecture and its governance. This marks the point when TOGAF begins to deal with other elds of expertise. At this stage, what can be achieved by means of the architecture becomes TOGAF s biggest concern. This is, in a way, the same kind of development as that in ITIL, where support to the business is vital. In TOGAF 9 the architecture is not the ultimate goal; that is instead the things an organization can achieve with architecture. Furthermore, it is not the architect but the owners and the executers who receive the bene ts of the new version of TOGAF at the deployment phase. The architecture focuses more on the soft side of the discipline and less on the technical content side. Following the publication of TOGAF 8.1.1, the Architecture Forum began its work on TOGAF Version 9 (publicly available in February 2009). In order to meet the needs of TOGAF users, a survey was conducted in the rst quarter of 2007 to determine the requirements for the next version. Three prominent views were expressed in this survey:The need for closer alignment with the businessThe desire for simple implementation and greater usabilityThe next version of TOGAF to be an evolution rather than a revolution. These views provided the required direction for the developers of TOGAF 9 to get started on the next revision. Emerging architecture trends, such as service-oriented architecture and the emphasis on security, were also considered, as well as alignment with The Open Group vision of Boundaryless Information Flow. History of TOGAF 5 Untitled Document8 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3Until recent years the professionals who used ITIL and TOGAF worked in different parts of the organization and had little opportunity to cross over into each other s eld of expertise. However, since they have begun addressing the issue of business IT alignment, they have increasingly overlaped. Consequently, they have been overwhelming business managers with the claim that IT professionals understand what business is about. We have seen that the business IT alignment has become a eld where IT professionals inform their business colleagues how they should undertake their work. In general, there is a broad discussion about comparing the different frameworks. All recognized standards take notice of the similarities and differences between frameworks and of the description of the optimal interfaces. What is most commonly found between ITIL and TOGAF is that they describe topics from different angles, and in some cases those descriptions seem to con ict. There is an additional problem that occurs in both frameworks: for those practitioners who need exact instructions on how to perform their processes, the models are too vague and unclear. Both frameworks therefore result in discussions on who should do what and who is responsible for what. When we examine exactly what is important in a theoretical model, we must recognize that best practice guidance works on a trial-and-error basis. Therefore, IT experts typically advise that one should read a book, try to understand why a process works in the way that is described, understand which problems can be solved that way, and then use the newly gained knowledge in that particular situation. In other words, it is forgotten that reality creates best practices and not the other way around. Pragmatism is a guiding principle in implementing a framework. For that purpose, communication among professionals in different elds is seen as a tool for cooperation towards a pragmatic use of best practice frameworks.Optimizing supply-and-demand chains is a multidisciplinary issue. Our need to work with best practice models has led us to try to solve new problems by making new models for them. The changes occur so fast that the models cannot keep up with the pace. The next stage is to describe theoretically the best solution without a reality check, as a test of their relevance or applicability.As we grow more dependent on other people, it is of the upmost importance to know what every party in the supply chain does. Communication with others is of growing importance. Before we expect others to work according to our rules it is important to ask them whether they already do so. Architects and Service Managers can cooperate in their efforts to align business and IT if they understand each other. In both frameworks, you will nd references to the other, but these do not exist when making comparisons between both frameworks in terms of the division of work and responsibilities between them. The easiest solution is to describe how others should perform their work, but this raises the question of whether the others know if that description is meant to be for them. In other words, the solution as to how specialists from both domains should work together is not found in the description of either framework.The framework dilemma 6 Untitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 9This section of the white paper summarizes the overlap between ITIL and TOGAF. As stated previously, until the latest versions of both frameworks were published, neither made reference to the other s. That changed, however, when ITIL V3 and TOGAF 8.1.1 were created. In ITIL V3 references are made to architectural concepts, hitherto only found in publications on architecture. The same, although to a much lesser extent, applies to TOGAF 8.1.1: where, in some places in the TOGAF book, references are made to IT management. In the most recent version of TOGAF this overlap is explicitly mentioned and described. However, before we delve into these encounters, it is wise to describe in a nutshell the scope of both frameworks. Figure 2 (below) depicts where ITIL V3 and TOGAF 8.1.1 can be placed on a continuum, from primary business processes to delivering and maintaining IT services.Business architecture is addressed by TOGAF but not by ITIL and, similarly, IT services are addressed by ITIL but not by TOGAF. The other elements (information architecture, technology architecture and IT solutions) are covered in both frameworks, albeit that the level of detail differs for each framework. In summary TOGAF gives you all you need to build the perfect IT solution and monitors the actual building, but provides no guidance on how to actually deliver IT services. ITIL gives you all you need to deliver IT services perfectly (but does so without an Where ITIL V3 and TOGAF meet 7 Figure 2 The scope of ITIL V3 and TOGAF 8.1.1 on a business continuumin-depth knowledge of and in uence on the supported business processes and misses out on the opportunity to improve the outcomes through business process improvement).High-level comparisonJohn Zachman de ned Enterprise Architecture as a means of creating a coherent way of modelling an enterprise to enable the ef cient and effective deployment of IT. In the same manner, it can be stated that Service Management is a means of creating a coherent way of modelling an IT department to enable the ef cient and effective deployment of IT services. The two de nitions look alike and indeed have a lot in common. Furthermore, if you compare the two de facto frameworks for Architecture and Service Management (TOGAF 9 and ITIL V3 respectively), a number of similarities are easily found. These similarities, and a number of differences, are described below. These similarities will then be described in more detail later in this paper.The easiest way to show that these two frameworks do indeed meet is to examine Figure 3 (derived from the Service Design volume of ITIL V3).Figure 3 The business change processUntitled Document10 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3In ITIL V3 it is stated that IT Service Design is part of the overall business change process. The following de nition of Service Design (which accompanies Figure 3 in ITIL V3) emphasizes even more clearly that ITIL and TOGAF are trespassing (in a friendly way) on each other s turf:'[Service design is] the design of appropriate and innovative IT services, including their architectures, processes, policies and documentation, to meet current and future agreed business requirements.'At rst glance one could think that activities described in TOGAF are to a large extent covered by ITIL as well. Further reading, however, shows that in ITIL, especially when it comes to architectural activities or concepts, the theory on architecture is not so coherent and well thought through as in TOGAF (which is no surprise of course).Both frameworks are a set of best or good practices. Furthermore, they both contain an extended version of Deming s quality cycle. In TOGAF it is referred to as the Architecture Development Method (ADM) and in ITIL it is dubbed the IT Service Lifecycle . Another similarity between the frameworks is that they both originated in IT, thus explaining to a large degree why integration of both frameworks with the business is not yet a common practice. Besides a number of similarities between the frameworks, there are also a number of differences. Although both frameworks contain a quality loop, these loops do not completely overlap. Figure 4 depicts which parts of the two frameworks are actually connected. The two main differences are:Developing business architecture is part of the TOGAF framework (as demonstrated in Phase A). The scope of ITIL is limited to developing an effective and ef cient IT department, whilst developing business architecture is out of scope in ITIL.Running IT operations and delivering actual IT services are within the scope of ITIL (as demonstrated in the Service Operation volume). TOGAF does not cover the development and maintenance of a run time environment. How services are actually produced and delivered is not covered in TOGAF. After an IT solution has become part of the operational environment, it turns into (part of) one or more services, with which TOGAF is not concerned.The overlap between ITIL and TOGAF is described below in more detail for each volume of the ITIL lifecycle.Figure 4 Connections between the TOGAF and ITIL frameworksUntitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 11Detailed comparison per lifecycle volumeService StrategyIn the ITIL book on Service Strategy, Professor Emeritus Theodore Levitt of the Harvard Business School is quoted as saying: People do not want quarter inch drills, they want quarter inch holes. As obvious and logical as this statement might be, it forms the core principle of how ITIL V3 looks upon its relationship with business. The value of IT is not so much found in the IT solutions and services it provides, but instead the added value must be found in the outcomes relevant for the business. The Service Strategy volume is focused on objectives, policies and guidelines. In TOGAF comparable subjects can be found in the ADM, more precisely in the Preliminary Phase and Phase A. Service Strategy provides guidance on how to design, develop, implement and maintain Service Management. Service Management is not only seen as an organizational capability but is also considered to be of strategic value. In Service Strategy, it is stated that it addresses the principles guiding the development of policies, guidelines and processes. TOGAF in the Preliminary Phase performs more or less the same role regarding Enterprise Architecture. Whereas Service Strategy is concerned with prerequisites for building a Service Management system, TOGAF performs the same role for building an architecture management system. Furthermore, as both frameworks are converging, they are at least partially building the same management system.Both management systems take into account what the requirements of the business are and how value can be added from either the architecture or service perspective. Service DesignService Design is the ITIL lifecycle component that crosses over most signi cantly with TOGAF. As the title of this book suggests, the content of Service Design is focused on designing new or changed services. The design of the Service Management system itself, based on the strategy prerequisites as de ned in Service Strategy, is also covered in this publication. The design activities and outputs described in ITIL Service Design can to a great extent, albeit in different wording, be found in TOGAF as well. The collection of requirements as de ned in TOGAF s Requirements Management is part of Service Design. There is no doubt that designing architectures constitutes an important activity within Service Design. In several places throughout the Service Design volume, it is stated that architecture is part of the deliverables of this part of the IT Service Lifecycle. References are made to TOGAF and other architecture frameworks. In the same way as demonstrated in TOGAF, a distinction is made between types of architecture. In ITIL four architectures are named: environmental architecture, application architecture, data architecture and technology architecture. One way in which large differences seem to exist between both frameworks is that TOGAF addresses the business architecture in Phase B (as one might readily guess from the title of this phase). The business architecture seems to be out of the scope of ITIL, as shown by the way the term is not coined in any of the ve volumes, unlike other types of architecture. The activities performed in TOGAF Phases C and D bear a great resemblance to activities described in Service Design, as both frameworks are about designing data architectures, application architectures and technology architectures. Finally, the environmental architecture which is mentioned in Service Design does not seem to have a counterpart in TOGAF. This architecture is not explicitly excluded from the scope of TOGAF, but the wording in TOGAF suggests that the environment is taken into account only as far as it might in uence the physical layout and setup of the location where the IT solution is to be deployed. Environmental architecture itself seems to be out of its bounds.Service TransitionThe activities described in Phases E, F and G of TOGAF can also be found in Service Transition. The scope of the Service Transition activities is much broader however. First of all, TOGAF is only concerned with the designing of architectures, and planning the migration of those architectures, in ITIL this part of the activity also includes the building, testing and planning of the migration of the desired IT solution. This signi es that, in one way, the scope of TOGAF is broader than the scope of ITIL as it includes the business architecture. However, tucked away somewhere in the chapter on the activities of Phase G, a number of activities can be found which seem to encompass the implementation of Service Management. TOGAF states, for instance, that implementing IT operations is an activity carried out in this Phase. It is also stated that this activity is about carrying out deployment projects, including IT Service Delivery implementation. However, what that exactly amounts to is not elaborated upon. In another place in the publication it is stated that one of the activities of Phase G is to guide development of business and IT operating models for services. Based on these comments it could be argued that all the outputs of implementing ITIL are also outputs of implementing TOGAF. The thought then occurs that if you are implementing an IT Service Management system, to use TOGAF as the leading framework would be a wise decision. The same idea, but reversed, poses the question can an architecture management system be implemented using ITIL as the leading framework? Luckily TOGAF itself provides an answer to this question. When TOGAF is implemented it will be adapted to the organization for which it is intended. And when other frameworks such as ITIL are already in place, or can prove to be of use, TOGAF explicitly states that (parts of) these frameworks can and should be used and incorporated into the architecture framework. ITIL does mention other frameworks, including TOGAF, but is not so explicit that they should be used for adapting an IT Service Management system if it is clear that this makes it a better IT Service Management system.Untitled Document12 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3Service OperationWith respect to Service Operation, the conclusion is simple: TOGAF does not provide guidance on this aspect of the IT Service Lifecycle, other than stating that guiding the development of IT operating models and implementing IT service delivery are only activities carried out within TOGAF.Continual Service ImprovementIt is no surprise that the Continual Service Improvement phase bears a great resemblance to Phase H of TOGAF, Architecture Change Management. Whereas TOGAF addresses this topic from a more theoretical viewpoint, ITIL provides much detailed and extensive guidance on how to operationalize a quality improvement cycle. An example of this difference is the level of detail with which both frameworks describe the measurement and monitoring of the quality of the IT services. In TOGAF it is stated that monitoring tools must be deployed and applied to enable (among other things) the tracking of quality of service performances and usage. Any more guidance on this subject is not available. ITIL, however, contains a very detailed description of a seven-step improvement process which provides guidance on how to measure, report, plan and implement improvements to services. This seven-step improvement process is not only used on an operational level but also provides input to improvement cycles on both tactical and strategic levels. Also, in regards to the subject of continual improvement, it seems that TOGAF is more open to other frameworks than ITIL. For example, TOGAF states that if change management processes are already in place (e.g. ITIL change management) they could very well be used for or adapted to managing changes to the architecture. Untitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 13In this white paper we have attempted to explain the change in organizational structure and thinking and why this has in uenced the development of popular frameworks. The fact that processes have extended outside existing departments has created a challenge that goes beyond the description of these processes themselves. The focus will thus turn to communication on different levels, and in explaining to partners in the supply-and-demand chain why some activities are necessary and others are not. These models do not give an answer to every organization in every situation. They are based on best practices and are not business-speci c anymore. Ultimately, it is the users that translate the common denominator to the speci c situation. Conclusions 8 Untitled Document14 TOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3TOGAF componentsAt the core of TOGAF is the Architecture Development Method (ADM): a process-based model that describes the steps needed to develop and use an Enterprise Architecture. To support the ADM, there exists the Enterprise Continuum: a concept of a virtual repository based on reusable building blocks. These building blocks can be commonly accepted market standards or speci c to a company. To further support ADM there also exists the Resource Base: a set of best practices and suggested approaches that can be used while developing the Enterprise Architecture. The various components of TOGAF are illustrated in Figure 5.Appendix 9 Figure 5 The components of TOGAFUntitled DocumentTOGAF" 9 and ITIL v3 15ITIL V3 componentsAt the core of ITIL V3 is the Service Strategy and the processes and functions focusing on Service Design, Service Transition and Service Operation. All of these are managed from the concept of Continual Service Improvement. They are supported by additional material such as certi cation, case material, templates, exam guides and white papers. The different components of ITIL V3 are illustrated in Figure 6.Figure 6 The components of ITIL V3 Crown copyright 2007. Reproduced under licence from OGC. Figure 2.10 The Service Lifecycle- Service Strategy Section 2.5Untitled DocumentThe authorsTom van Sante:Tom van Sante started his career in IT over 25 years ago after studying Architecture at the Technical University in Delft. Working in a variety of functions, spanning operations, management, commerce, and business development, he has always operated on the borders between business and IT. He was involved in the introduction and development of ITIL/ASL/BiSL in the Netherlands. His involvement in Enterprise Architecture brought him in contact with TOGAF. He is currently a selected board member of the Open Group. Tom has also produced a number of publications on IT standards. and is co-writer of the TOGAF Pocket Guide and chief author of: TOGAF A Management Guide.Jeroen Ermers:Jeroen Ermers has more than 20 years of experience in IT. He began his career studying law part-time at the University of Amsterdam. For the last 15 years he has worked as a consultant for Getronics Consulting (and previously for other companies) on topics such as ITIL, Business IT Alignment, Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance. Jeroen has co-authored De Kleine ITIL, an early Dutch publication on ITIL V3.LiteratureITIL: ITIL Lifecycle Publication Suite Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation, Continual Service Improvement De Kleine ITIL (Dutch version, published by Sdu Uitgevers.)TOGAF 9 TOGAF" Version 9 TOGAF" Version 9 A Pocket Guide TOGAF" The Open Group Architecture Framework A Management Guide (All three publications are available from Van Haren publishing.)Further informationITIL: http://www.best-management-practice.com TOGAF: http://www.opengroup.orgTrademarks & AcknowledgementsSourced by TSO and published on www.best-management-practice.com. Our White Paper series should not be taken as constituting advice of any sort and no liability is accepted for any loss resulting from use of or reliance on its content. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information, TSO cannot accept responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies.Content, diagrams, logos and jackets are correct at time of going to press but may be subject to change without notice.Copyright TSO and TOGAF. Reproduction in full or part is prohibited without prior consent from the Author.ITIL is a Registered Trade Mark of the Of ce of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries.The swirl logo" is a Trade mark of the Of ce of Government Commerce.The Open Group, Motif, Making Standards Work, OSF/1, UNIX and the TOGAF device are registered trademarks, and TOGAF and Boundaryless Infomation Flow are trademarks of The Open Group in the US and other countries. The authors, literature 10 and further information