Feasibly Disruptive™
Feasibly Disruptive™

CMM

Unveiling the Architecture Capability Framework

TOGAF CMM

Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of Information Technology (IT)1, organisations seek effective methods to enhance their development processes and gain better control over their architectural endeavours. The Architecture Capability Framework, deeply rooted in the Capability Maturity Models (CMM), emerges as a powerful tool within The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). This framework provides organisations with a structured approach to gradually improve their Technology-related processes. One prominent aspect of this framework is the Architecture Capabilities Maturity Model (ACMM).

What is CMM

There is a whole Landscape of Capability Maturity Models (CMMs)

TOGAF’s Architecture Capability Framework draws inspiration from various Capability Maturity Models (CMM), each tailored to address specific aspects of organisational processes. Some notable models include the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM), Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM), People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM), IDEAL Life Cycle Model for Improvement, and the Enterprise Architecture Capabilities Maturity Model (ACMM).

Components of the ACMM

The ACMM, a crucial part of the Architecture Capability Framework, comprises three main sections:

  1. 2 Architecture Maturity Model: This section defines the six levels of maturity for nine key architecture characteristics. The levels range from 0 (None) to 5 (Measured), depicting the evolutionary journey an organisation undertakes in enhancing its architectural capabilities.
  2. Architecture Characteristics of Processes at Different Maturity Levels: The nine architecture characteristics provide a comprehensive view of an organisation’s architecture capabilities. These include architectural process, architectural development, business linkage, senior management involvement, operating unit participation, architectural communication, Technology3 security, architectural governance, and Technology3 investment and acquisition strategy.
  3. The ACMM Scorecard: The ACMM scorecard acts as a monitoring and assessment tool. It allows organisations to gauge their current maturity level in each of the nine characteristics, enabling a clear understanding of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

 

Levels and Characteristics

  • Levels: The six maturity levels serve as milestones, representing the organisation’s progress in building and refining its architecture capabilities.
    • M0 — None (no architecture capability)
    • M1 — Initial (ad-hoc)
    • M2 — Under Development (processes being defined)
    • M3 — Defined (documented, standardised)
    • M4 — Managed (measured, controlled)
    • M5 — Optimising (continuous improvement)

 

  • Characteristics: The nine architecture characteristics offer a granular perspective on various dimensions of an organisation’s architecture. From the intricacies of architecture processes to the strategic aspects of IT/Technology investment and acquisition strategy, each characteristic contributes to the overall maturity of the organisation.

The nine TOGAF ACMM characteristics:

  1. Architecture Process — how architecture work is performed (ad-hoc vs. repeatable vs. optimised)
  2. Architecture Development — maturity of producing architecture artefacts and deliverables
  3. Business Linkage — alignment between architecture and business strategy/goals
  4. Senior Management Involvement — executive sponsorship and engagement with EA
  5. Operating Unit Participation — involvement of business units in architecture processes
  6. Architecture Communication — how architecture is communicated across the organisation
  7. IT Security — integration of security into architecture practice
  8. Architecture Governance — controls, compliance, decision-making structures
  9. IT Investment and Acquisition Strategy — how architecture informs technology investment decisions

Each characteristic is assessed independently across the maturity levels (M0–M5), giving a multi-dimensional view rather than a single score. An organisation might be M3 on Governance but M1 on Business Linkage.

Practical use: Helps identify specific capability gaps rather than blanket “you’re immature” statements — useful for targeted improvement roadmaps.

CMM Conclusion

The Architecture Capability Framework in TOGAF, particularly the Architecture Capabilities Maturity Model, empowers organisations to enhance their Technology3-related development processes systematically. By leveraging the structured approach of maturity levels and characteristics, organisations can not only gain control over their architecture but also pave the way for continuous improvement. As the technological landscape continues to evolve, embracing frameworks like ACMM becomes imperative for organisations aspiring to thrive in the dynamic realm of Information Technology.

ACMM is foundational to the TOGAF Architecture Development Method(ADM)

TOGAF ADM Categorised

ADM is a natural flow possible to achieve in organisations based on the sound foundations of TOGAF CMM. Otherwise, it might not be that natural and smooth.

Where are the deliverables?

ACMM maturity level determines ADM viability. The nine ACMM characteristics (Architecture Process, Business Linkage, Governance, etc.) are prerequisites, and we can’t execute ADM phases effectively without sufficient capability maturity in those areas.

This makes deliverables implicit in the CMM assessment — if we’re M1 (Initial) on Architecture Development, we can’t produce Phase B/C/D deliverables at quality. If we’re M5 (Optimising) on Architecture Governance, our contracts and compliance artefacts will be rigorous.

So the deliverables aren’t missing from the ADM wheel — they’re capability-gated by the CMM dimensions we’ve placed underneath it. The relationship is:

CMM + ADM

The CMM isn’t just a maturity assessment; it’s an organisational design constraint.

We’re also using it to answer: “What structure, roles, and governance must exist before EA can deliver value?”

The forcing function:

  • M0-M1 — EA is futile, organisation isn’t ready
  • M2 — Minimum viable structure emerging (processes being defined, governance forming)
  • M3+ — EA can actually function (documented standards, executive sponsorship, cross-unit participation)

What this implies for organisational design (aka the “orgchart”)

  1. Senior Management Involvement characteristic → EA reporting structure must reach the C-suite
  2. Operating Unit Participation → Federated model, not ivory tower centralised EA
  3. Architecture Governance → Architecture Review Board (ARB) or equivalent must exist with teeth
  4. Business Linkage → EA must sit in the strategic planning cycle, not the EA backroom

Without this structure, ADM is theatre — you can draw diagrams, but nothing changes because the organisation can’t absorb or enforce the outputs.

When I walk into an engagement, the CMM assessment tells me:

  • Can we do EA here? (maturity gate)
  • What org changes are prerequisites? (structure mandate)
  • Where do we focus our improvement efforts? (capability gaps)

This is much more pragmatic than the standard TOGAF consultancy teaching, which assumes organisational readiness and just hands you the ADM wheel.

Maturity building first

I am selling capability building, not architecture artefacts.

The pivot in practice:

Instead of “we’ll deliver your Target Architecture in 6 months,” it becomes:

  1. Assess current state — run ACMM scorecard across the nine characteristics
  2. Identify critical gaps — which dimensions block progress (typically Senior Management Involvement, Architecture Governance, Business Linkage)
  3. Build foundational capability — establish ARB, define architecture process, secure executive sponsorship, create communication channels
  4. Incrementally mature — move M1 → M2 → M3 on critical characteristics before attempting full ADM cycles
  5. Then deliver EA — once organizational structure can absorb it

What I am actually selling:

  • Phase 1: Organisational readiness (3-6 months) — governance structure, role definition, process framework
  • Phase 2: Pilot ADM cycle (6-12 months) — limited scope, prove value, refine capability
  • Phase 3: Scale and optimise (ongoing) — full ADM, continuous improvement

Caveat Emptor: Here we are already deep in the “B” part of the “B-P-T” Loop. Contact me for further explanations.

The commercial advantage:

This approach gives me longer, stickier engagements than “here’s your architecture document, goodbye.” I am embedding myself in organisational transformation, not just producing deliverables.

The risk:

Clients at M0-M1 often don’t want to hear “you need 6 months of prep work” — they want the Target Architecture now. How do I handle that objection when they’re expecting immediate ADM outputs?

 

  1. Have replaced “IT” with “Technology” wherever I think it was appropriate. Rationale: There is no “IT” in a business context without Technology as the wider term.
  2. In the context of this article, every Architecture is IT (or Technology) Architecture
  3. IT  is based on Technology, so we can use Technology as the wider term.
  4. The content of this page is based on the original page © 2023 by Visual Paradigm:  https://togaf.visual-paradigm.com/2023/10/11/unveiling-the-architecture-capability-framework-in-togaf/