Techniques for clarifying decisions | TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Foundation: from vision to operations

Concept and mechanism

A technique is useful when it answers the question blocking a decision. Gap analysis compares what exists and what is intended, but requires interpretation. If the baseline contains A, B, and C and the target A, C, and D, D needs introduction and B needs a retirement or transformation decision. A and C may remain, subject to necessary fitness. Nothing in this comparison proves B can safely be disabled today. Check consumers, data, responsibilities, and when replacement capability becomes available. The identified difference should inform change options and traceable work.

Guided application

Stakeholder analysis helps uncover concerns that change design. APS may need recovery within a window development never discussed. An original business scenario can describe who acts, the triggering event, constraints, and expected outcome without reproducing a normative template. For a cut-off change, include receipt, validation, failures, and retry ownership. Also assess option risks: automation through one supplier may save work and create dependency. Compare benefit, failure consequences, and possible treatment. Do not invent probabilities merely to populate a matrix; identify uncertainty and the evidence needed to reduce it.

IN PRACTICE

A catalogue shows B exists; dependency analysis explains when B can stop existing.

Common pitfalls

Matrix as automatic decision; risk without consequence; omitted stakeholder; scenario reduced to a product list.

Related topics: Iteration, scope, and partitioning · Govern implementation and exceptions

Take this idea with you

Choose the technique for the problem and interpret results in context.

Create account

Reference: Foundation competency mapping · OGEA-101, TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Foundation; body of knowledge drawn from TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition