Nowadays most people are thinking that can Agile and TOGAF work together or not. For getting to know the answer of this question, we should figure out what TOGAF actually is?

TOGAF, The Open Group Architecture Framework is a platform which is providing different services to enterprise architecture such as; it gives the method for designing, it leads an enterprise information, planning and implementation of new design.

Same as this the methods of software development and continued planning and learning is described by Agile.

Why is it challenging to integrate TOGAF with agile projects?

If we are talking about agile and TOGAF work with each other, they are totally opposite and they have a clear cultural difference.

It is very necessary to know that TOGAF is not followed by letter framework, it inspires the people who are doing practice it to adapt and change the application model according to the needs which must suit the circumstances. It clearly means that the perfect modified TOGAF fit in with agile development.

TOGAF is doing another important task that it captures what is happening in large organisations which is not related of whether it is completed as part of a frame work.

Solutions:

To take fair and clear decisions and do some agreement that how things are done, it is necessary to reduce the repetition, set architectural decisions and set your application portfolio.

In the agile processes some trails have done to make TOGAF but there are some hurdles to do that like architectural vision can be replaced with backlog management.

It is important for an architect to know that agile gives and take more interactive and helping approaches to explain the architecture. The architecture need to prepare that they ought to take some urgent decisions regarding their team work and they must take a complete view of their work which is done by their team.

As an agile team, the architecture need to work with proper strategies, planning, modern techniques and related data, that they bring all of that from wider organization.

— Slimane Zouggari

The 15-minute FOTO was introduced to generate effective and implementable solutions to certain obstacles within a time span of 15 minutes. It is no wonder that we tend to generalize solutions for certain problems, and a majority of the time, these outcomes are oversimplified to other people’s problems. The interference of generalization could be highly ineffective in generating solutions for deeper issues and collaborating together to induce a suitable outcome for countering the situation. We often tend to express our disagreement over an issue, and we are conflicted regarding disclosing a proper solution to a problem.

The 15-minute FOTO was introduced as an implementable tool which is employed by workshops that excel in Agile Software Management (IT). FOTO is an acronym for ‘From Obstacles to Outcomes’, and it allocated a time span of 15 minutes to generate a pool of outcomes for a specific problem. It involves scribing questions on a cue card to derive outcomes for a problem.

It is highly imperative to understand the components, which consist of an obstacle, an outcome, and a solution. An obstacle refers to a problem, which requires being tackles by applying an outcome to derive a solution to the problem. An outcome is known as a new situation or behavior, which is geared towards generating a solution, alternatively known as a particular way of approaching a problem.

Before indulging in the game, you should take some time out to demonstrate the workability of the game by taking few of your examples into consideration. Then, you should proceed further with practicing on a sample obstacle prescribed on your list. Next, you should predetermine an expectation which is geared towards generating a pool of positive of outcomes in the given 15 minutes.

In the next step, you can consider assembling the outcomes in a number of ways. You can implement a short-term, medium-term, and a long-term approach to organize the outcomes. Alternatively, you can implement the Cynefin four-point contextualization exercise to systematize the generated outcomes. Or, you can also employ a story mapping and impact mapping approach to arrange the outcomes in a systematic approach. You can also discuss with your team members to devise better problems for the given problem to complete a round of the game.

— Slimane Zouggari

The science of how to learn new things could become one of the major applied disciplines in our time. Each of us learns a lot of skills and abilities throughout the life. No matter how different these skills are — from making a cake and searching Google to performing Beethoven sonatas and writing scientific articles — they are based on general principles. Understanding these principles would make learning a more clear and painless process.
Psychology studies these principles from its very foundation. Today, we know much more about the training mechanisms, although still not enough. Even change management actively uses the model to study how the employees get new skills.
Skill acquisition models will help you understand not only how the learning process works, but also more effectively plan your own activities, avoid unnecessary difficulties and get the best result in less time.
True, they will not give you the most important thing — regular and conscious practice. This part of the work will have to be done by yourself.

One of the most famous skill acquisition models was developed in the early 1980s by the brothers Stuart and Hubert Dreyfus of the University of California at Berkeley. This model is often discussed in scientific and popular science literature.
According to the Dreyfus model, mastering any skill is divided into five stages:
• Novice
• Advanced beginner
• Competent
• Proficient
• Expert
Novice always follows the rules — for him, they have the status of an immutable law. When you start to learn a new skill, the rules are very important: only with their help you can at least somehow navigate the material and get the necessary experience. In addition, in many cases, the rules are sufficient. It is not necessary to be a cook to prepare a cake and to please your relatives – just read the recipe and follow the instructions clearly.
For the advanced beginner the rule is becoming situational: in one situation one method is good, in another it is better to use another one. The advanced beginner knows how to make more than one cake, and he will not prepare a vanilla cake the same way as a chocolate cake. This is already a good step towards competence.
The competent person sees not only the rules but the basic principles and models. He begins to rely more on his own ideas and experience, rather than on a set of instructions. At this level, you act more freely and can flexibly adjust to the situation. There is already a zone of personal responsibility for the result — a zone that many do not reach.
The proficient person goes farther and a little bit the other way. His actions are less based on principles, and more on a sense of intuition. The proficient realizes how to act at the right time, and his choice is often true. Instead of various disparate parts, he sees an integral whole.
The expert acts even more intuitively: he just does — and it works. If he is asked why he made this or that decision, it may be difficult for him to give an answer — for him, it seems so obvious. And it will not arrogant that is more common for a beginner, but a deep knowledge. We can even say it is a reflex. This requires many days and months of practice: the expert’s experience is so great that in every single situation he subconsciously knows what to do.

We must admit that the borders between these levels are conventional — there is no clear gradation between them. In addition, leveling up does not always mean something good. For example, an expert is not always a good teacher, and a person who is at the previous stage can feel more comfortable in this role.

— Slimane Zouggari

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a best-selling book written by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, a professor at Princeton University (USA), winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Usually, we believe we are acting rationally. But is it true? Based on the research on cognitive and social psychology, Daniel Kahneman reveals the secrets of how the human brain works, describes unconscious prejudice, the properties of intuitive and conscious thinking, the role of emotions in evaluative judgments.
Without this knowledge, you risk making the wrong choices in the store, invest in wrong projects and generally make the wrong decisions. Thinking, Fast and Slow will teach you to use the limited attention resources effectively, to make decisions in conditions of uncertainty and to improve your own judgments.

The principal idea
In the 1970s, two hypotheses were generally accepted. First, people are rational and think reasonably. Second, most deviations from rationality are explained by emotions. But Kahneman’s research has shown that the constant mistakes of people’s thinking are due to the very mechanism of thinking rather than to the influence of emotions.
Today, in general, researchers agree with the thesis that our minds tend to bias systematically. Kahneman’s principal idea is to demonstrate the work of the mind with the latest discoveries in cognitive and social psychology.

Two systems
In his book, Kahneman identifies two systems in the human psyche:
System 1 is responsible for a very fast, automatic, often emotional reaction that does not require effort and control. It works automatically and very quickly, almost without requiring effort and without giving a sense of intentional control. Some skills of System 1 are built in by nature: object recognition, orientation in space, reflex facial expressions. Others are formed by practice: simple calculations, driving a car on an empty road, recognizing stereotypes. Some of them we realize, some do not.
System 2 highlights the attention needed for conscious mental effort, including those for complex calculations. Its work is related to conscious activity, choice, and concentration. The System 2 requires attention. The problem will no longer be able to be fulfilled.
Here is the trick: our limit of attention is not endless, and it is reasonable to save it. Therefore, System 1 takes a lead. The problem is that saving energy and time, it is at risk of a lot of mistakes.

Kahneman several times mentions that the systems are absolutely virtual: you will not find even the slightest trace in the brain. We cannot say that some parts of the brain are responsible for the System 1 operation, and some of them provide the System 2 functioning. The separation used by Kahneman is nothing more than a model of brain work, and the model always simplifies the object.
Kahneman believes that it effortlessly generates impressions and feelings that are the main source of belief and conscious choice of System 2. When System 1 faces difficulties, it turns to System 2 to solve its current task through more detailed and targeted processing. System 2 is mobilized when System 1 cannot solve the issue.
The System 2 formal characteristic is that its actions are coupled with effort, and one of its main characteristics is laziness and unwillingness to spend more energy than necessary. Laziness is an integral part of our nature. Therefore, it happens that those thoughts and actions that System 2 considers to be its own, are often generated by System 1. System 2 specifically reacts to the overload. System 2 protects the most important task so that it could get all the necessary attention, and distribute spare power to other tasks.

— Slimane Zouggari