NATO Architecting Method with regard to TOGAF/ADM

The NATO architecting method has its roots in the TOGAF-ADM method, though some major changes have been operated to extend applicability to any kind of system, tackling thus far more stakeholders and viewpoints to consider at trade-off analyses.

NAFv-4 architecting method includes stages and dependencies that go beyond the ADM, to ease the capture and maintenance of viewpoints in their different aspects along the architecture program, where an architecture project spans more than one business project. Architecture is thus applicable to a whole solution life cycle, and can impact other – interleaving - life cycles.

The main differences in content and objective are captured in the following table. The focus of comparison is put on key differences:

• Architecture outcome is an overall solution plan, including evolution over system’s life cycle, specifically when the latter is interleaved with one or many other (enabling) products’/systems’ roadmaps.
• Architecture motivation data and dashboard at the heart of architecting method:
  • Motivation data strengthen the “requirements” driven architecture development method, by documenting and sharing architecture scope and objectives upfront “system requirement engineering activities”.
  • For a better understanding of needs from all stakeholders perspectives, not only developers, and
• Architecture identify, evaluate and compare alternatives based on motivation data
  • According to drivers and stakes, architecture defines the top (5-7) criteria to compare alternatives of the overall solution.

A comparison is synthesised in the following table.

Table -1 – Comparison TOGAF/ADM- Architecture Method