A Comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks


This study redefines enterprise architecture by comparing key frameworks, challenging the prevalent technology-focused view, and promoting a business-centric perspective. Gain valuable insights to bridge the IT-business gap in your organization.


This paper provides a framework to compare key enterprise architecture frameworks - Zachman enterprise architecture framework, aka Zachman, Department of Defense architecture framework, aka DoDAF, Treasury enterprise architecture framework, aka TEAF, and Federal enterprise architecture framework, aka FEAF.

Enterprise architecture (EA) is a fast-growing field in information technology, increasingly seen as an essential instrument for optimizing and harmonizing complex IT systems within organizations. However, the understanding and application of EA remain trapped within the technological paradigm, limiting its potential to align with business objectives.

Many enterprise architects grapple with the dichotomy between EA's technical and business aspects. The document underscores that the current perception of enterprise architecture primarily centers on mapping software development processes, somewhat sidelining its role in fulfilling the business mission of the enterprise. Furthermore, the document addresses the questionable practice of comparing enterprise architecture frameworks. It raises the contention that such comparisons might not yield meaningful insights due to architecture's distinct and contextual nature.

While exploring the comparison of various enterprise architecture frameworks, the document concurrently attempts to rectify the prevalent technology-centric viewpoint of EA. It encourages enterprise architects to view their role from a broader perspective, transcending the technical details and connecting with business values and goals. The document seeks to foster a shift in perception, where enterprise architecture isn't just about designing IT systems but rather about orchestrating the interaction between technology and business processes to support the enterprise's mission.

This comprehensive comparison serves as a primer on the subject and prompts a fundamental shift in understanding EA frameworks. It implores professionals to move beyond the debate of which framework is superior and focus more on effectively utilizing these frameworks to serve the organization's objectives and strategic alignment. Thus, the document redefines the essence of enterprise architecture, situating it as an integral part of business strategy and transformation.

I have included this paper for reasons other than sharing the comparison framework. The first is to highlight the state of discussion on enterprise architecture - enterprise architects are still stuck in the technology weeds - and the resulting lack of connection with business leadership. One cannot make a business case for enterprise architecture - or anything else for that matter - if we do not connect with the business aspects of it.

Take, for example, the definition of enterprise architecture presented in this paper: "An Enterprise Architecture Framework (EAF) maps all of the software development processes within the enterprise and how they relate and interact to fulfill the enterprise’s mission." Really?

The good news is that we are trying to make a connection to the enterprise's mission. However, is the essence of an enterprise architecture framework the mapping of software development processes? Sure, it is one of the activities but is the architecture of a house - I know there is a debate on the use of this analogy but I am trying to make a point - the mapping of all the brick, door etc. making processes?

So it turns out that the bad news is that we lose out business connection with this definition and way of thinking.

Second, I wanted to highlight the futility of comparing enterprise architecture frameworks. Again, one can admire and perhaps express a preference for the architectures of various buildings, but can we truly "compare" architectures in a meaningful way? I don't believe so.

Third, the entirely academic nature of these discussions - I could've said juvenile in a "my architecture is better than yours" way, but I didn't go there for a reason. Enterprise architects and technology geeks like me love these discussions – sometimes, we live for them! - what meaningful discussion does one hope to make based upon such a comparison? This paper compares deliverables and processes - does that tell us which framework to adopt?

As Chief Information Officers (CIOs), this comprehensive comparative document on enterprise architecture frameworks provides essential insights that can help address several real-world problems. Here are some key takeaways and applications:

  1. Alignment of IT and Business Strategy: The document emphasizes bridging the gap between technology and business. With this perspective, CIOs can work towards ensuring that the enterprise architecture isn't merely about designing IT systems but also about aligning them with business objectives. This can aid in reducing miscommunication between IT and business departments, streamline operations, and improve strategic decision-making.
  2. Selection of Suitable Frameworks: While the document indicates the futility of comparing frameworks in a conventional sense, CIOs can use the comparison as a guide to understand better the strengths, weaknesses, and core focus of each framework. This understanding can then be applied to select or customize a framework that aligns best with their organizational context, needs, and strategic goals.
  3. Change in Perception and Communication: The document can aid CIOs in changing the internal perception of enterprise architecture within their organizations. Instead of viewing EA as a solely technical domain, it can be presented as a crucial part of business strategy and transformation. This broader view can help gain buy-in from the leadership team and foster collaboration between IT and other business units.
  4. Educational Resource for the Team: CIOs can use this document to educate their team and other stakeholders about the holistic perspective of enterprise architecture. This would encourage team members to think beyond their specific roles and consider how their work impacts the enterprise's mission and business objectives.
  5. Avoiding Pitfalls: By highlighting the challenges and common missteps in EA practices, this document can help CIOs anticipate and avoid potential issues. The understanding gleaned from this comparison can inform more effective planning and implementation of EA projects, reducing risk and increasing the likelihood of success.

In summary, the real-world application of this document for a CIO is not just about understanding different EA frameworks but also about leveraging this understanding to foster better alignment between technology and business, and thereby driving strategic value for the organization.




This A Comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks has been accessed 461 times.
Must Login To Download


Signup for Thought Leader

Get the latest IT management thought leadership delivered to your mailbox.

Mailchimp Signup (Short)

Join The Largest Global Network of CIOs!

Over 75,000 of your peers have begun their journey to CIO 3.0 Are you ready to start yours?
Mailchimp Signup (Short)