Enterprise Architecture frameworks comparison

Before talking about Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks comparison, it is important having clearly in mind what EA itself is all about:

From Wikipedia

Enterprise architecture (EA) is “a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a holistic approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes

Large organizations embracing  EA practice should consider it as their own business with continuos development, resources and budget allocated for it.

Since a number of frameworks (claiming to provide guidelines on how to develop EA) have been created, I was curious  to analyze the differences between them. During my research, I came across the following comparison made by Pragmaticea

The comparison, carried on by Pragmaticea, analyzes four frameworks (MAGENTA, TOGAF, Zachman, PEAF) and for obvious reasons the best one results to be PEAF sponsored by Pragmaticea 🙂

I personally don’t agree with that analysis but what I’ve found very unfair is to place TOGAF as the least one.

I don’t want to be a TOGAF advocate but the following statement in their report, is quite arguable:

From comparison made by Pragmaticea

TOGAF is mostly concerned with IT rather than the entire organization

Answering to this point, I would refer to the Business Architecture (B) domain as defined in TOGAF


As far as I am concerned, according to TOGAF, the Business Architecture is all about business:

As a matter of facts the Business Architecture:

  • It focus on business capability.
  • It is owned by business people and not by IT people.
  • It is not concerned on IT execution.

After said that, it is true that TOGAF addresses as well the IT execution concerns but it is made from the phase E going forward and this function is usually owned by PMO (Project Management Office).

Moreover I’ve found this statement deceptive because we are all in the space of setting up a EA framework and the scope of EA (regardless of the framework adopted) is all about designing how the IT system should operate in order to align it to the business concerns.

From this perspective, I would say that TOGAF addresses fully this concern.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.