The first and most serious thing wrong with the latest TOGAF edition is that there is no “TOGAF 10”. There is the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition,, 1672 pages long in its PDF version. Numerous TOGAF courses are planned leveraging that monumental collection of information: TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Foundation, TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Practitioner, TOGAF Business Architecture, TOGAF Solution Architecture, and several others. Therefore, leadership at The Open Group eschewed and effectively banned the use of the title “TOGAF 10” to not allow for the misperception that it was only related to the traditional TOGAF courses over the past 20+ years.
TOGAF 9.2 was just a bit over 500 pp. long and pretty much dedicated to just 3 courses: TOGAF 9.2 Foundation, TOGAF 9.2 Practitioner, and TOGAF Business Architecture (derived from TOGAF 9.2 and allowing for only a credential instead of a certification).
Anyway, a large amount of confusion still exists in the marketplace regarding the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, launched in April 2022. One could ask why it took so long to begin offering the new certification, for example One reason is that the versions of TOGAF are no longer going to be linked only to an overall certification course. The paths of developing new versions of the standard and new certification programs have officially diverged.
Furthermore, mass confusion reigns because of the refusal of The Open Group to allow the use of “TOGAF 10” to describe the new certification courses. If they do find the latest Digital Version shared above, they are overwhelmed by the amount of content and still uninformed on the actual names of the main certifications. This is also causing major headaches for vendors offering certifications in the new edition of the standard.
Actually, this dilemma could easily be solved by just inserting the number “10” between “TOGAF” and whatever variant course based on the new standard, such as “TOGAF 10 Enterprise Architecture Practitioner.” This is such a simple change and I think everyone would be the winner going forward with this small tweak.
But there are more  substantive issues with the new edition of the TOGAF Standard. While acknowledging the vision and breadth of the new version, it lacks the consistency of TOGAF 9.2. For example, the current standard is mixing core, rather unchanging content over the years with items that I would characterize in many cases as essays (called Guides). It appears that very little effort has been made to ensure consistency in the use of even a common term like “stakeholder” between the core content and the expanded guides.
This is particularly problematic for the following reason:  There is very explicit repetition in the new standard that the stakeholders own the architecture and every associated decision about it – not the architects. Well, the architects are also stakeholders! And not every stakeholder would even know enough to make an informed contribution to most of the decisions that have to be made in the life cycle of an EA project. In addition, stakeholders could be external and it’s obvious we would not want them getting decision authority of an organization’s planned target architecture. This area of confusion is one that trainers have to work hard to make understandable and reasonable because it is not clarified in the standard itself.
In addition, there are numerous questionable statements in this Practitioner’s Approach, even in the first few pages of this “essay”, now treated as if it has been vetted to the same degree as the core material. [Whatever I hear regarding such vetting, I cannot imagine that the following examples would have made it into the standard if the same degree of editorial review had been undertaken as for previous editions.]
Note that the next two statements from “A Practitioners’ Approach to Developing Enterprise Architecture Following the TOGAF® ADM” essentially contradict each other:
“This Guide puts forward an approach to develop, maintain, and use an EA that aligns to a set of requirements and expectations of the stakeholders and enables predictable value creation.”
“Anyone who suggests there is a single correct approach, model, view, work product, or technique is not providing the right advice for you to succeed.”
The following declaration from the same document  is not as “plain and simple” as it appears to be:
“An architecture should inform and enable decision-making. Just align the delivery of architecture to the Enterprise’s business cycle and the purpose of the architecture development initiative. The value is delivered when the architecture is used. It is plain and simple.” [Just because architecture work is used doesn’t mean that it had any value whatsoever. What if it is incorrect?]
Consider the following definition of an architecture practitioner:
Practitioner: The person tasked to develop, maintain, and use an Enterprise Architecture.
“This Guide is written directly for the person who does the work: develops, maintains, and uses an EA [i.e., the practitioner, the person who is also] not worried about the theory, and who is not worried about how to structure or maintain an EA Capability.”] [So, do we have other than “EA practitioners developing, using, and maintaining the EA Capability?]
“This Guide assumes that you have established an EA Capability and have customized the TOGAF framework for your Enterprise.” [In other words, you are not a practitioner? If an EA practitioner has nothing to do with the establishment and customization of the EA Capability, then who does?]
“A list of gaps makes obvious what must change and the implications of that change: is the proposed project in alignment with what is needed? In alignment with priority? In alignment with the complete set of goals and objectives?” [Of course there is nothing obvious about arriving at an accurate set of gaps, especially since there could be considerable confusion about candidate target states as well as uncertainty about current processes or elements.]
There are two other issues in the Practitioners Approach document that I’ll mention because they are given a lot of attention in the learning objectives for the exams: the idea of a Superior Architecture, which is never defined in TOGAF nor the guide, and the notion that there are only 4 purposes of EA (tied to granularity): Strategic, Portfolio, Project, and Solution Delivery. Such a declaration and demarcation is arbitrary and overly linear – not apparently aligned well at all with considerations of agility in the use of the ADM.
In conclusion, to answer the question posed in the title of this essay: The rollout of the TOGAF Enterprise Architecture certification courses is a major event. However, it is being marred by the refusal to allow for the usage of “TOGAF 10” in the name of courses derived from the TOGAF Standard, 10th edition. But a bigger challenge for trainers is to untangle a lot of the seeming errors and oversimplifications in essays now treated as TOGAF “gospel,” such as “A Practitioners’ Approach to Developing Enterprise Architecture Following the TOGAF® ADM”, which is a 150-page PDF.
 Having just re-read another key guide used to extent TOGAF’s Body of Knowledge included in the newest standard, The TOGAF® Leader’s Guide to Establishing and Evolving an EA Capability, I’m struck by its verbosity and lack of upfront alignment with the Preliminary Phase of the TOGAF ADM. Whatever useful material it may be contributing should be directly linked to each of the 7 Steps in that Phase. Otherwise, one is likely than not to get lost in a 130-page PDF philosophical essay rather than something practical.
I envision a future release of an enhanced edition that will put in the extra effort required to integrate content more thoroughly, efficiently, and coherently. In the meantime, I highly recommend you take an accredited course from an organization that has been doing TOGAF courses for more than a decade – EA Principals is eager to be your choice. Our accredited TOGAF 10th Edition course name is TOGAF® Foundation and Advanced Applied Architecture 2022.  There is a lot to unpack with TOGAF Enterprise Architect and its bulk and inconsistencies require true expertise to achieve the knowledge transfer in the few contact days involved. For those of you already certified in TOGAF 9.2, please take advantage of the Bridge training and exam, which is not nearly as daunting, in my opinion, as taking both levels of the TOGAF Enterprise Architecture certification to update your TOGAF currency. 
Authored by Dr. Steve Else, Chief Architect & Principal Instructor


Can't find what you are looking for? Call (703) 333-6098 or Contact Us.
If you are having issues with our website, Contact our Webmaster.