TOGAF |
- Provides a detailed step-by-step approach
- Widely adopted with a large professional community
- Flexible and adaptable to organization needs
- Robust methodology with continuous updates
- Compatible with other standards (e.g., ITIL, COBIT)
|
- Can be overly complex for smaller organizations
- Requires significant investment in training
- Can be too rigid if not adapted properly
- Implementation can be time-consuming
- Risk of being too theoretical without practical application
|
Zachman Framework |
- Highly structured and comprehensive
- Provides clear taxonomy for organizing architectural artifacts
- Applicable to a wide variety of organizations
- Facilitates communication between different stakeholders
- Long-standing framework with proven methodology
|
- Can be seen as overly complex and rigid
- Not prescriptive or process-oriented
- May be difficult to implement fully
- Does not provide a direct path for implementation
- Focuses more on documentation than on execution
|
FEAF |
- Tailored for the specific needs of US federal agencies
- Promotes standardization and shared services
- Includes specific reference models for federal use
- Facilitates inter-agency communication and collaboration
- Encourages efficient resource utilization
|
- Primarily applicable to the US federal government
- May not be easily adaptable to non-federal organizations
- Can be bureaucratic and prescriptive
- Risk of being outdated due to the pace of technology change
- May require customization to fit specific agency needs
|
DoDAF |
- Specialized for defense and national security needs
- Supports interoperability and capability-based planning
- Structured to support large, complex organizations
- Facilitates alignment of IT investments with mission goals
- Provides a common language and standard for military projects
|
- Highly specific to defense sector requirements
- Can be complex and difficult to understand
- Requires significant effort to maintain currency
- Not easily transferable to the private sector
- Focuses more on compliance than on innovation
|
MODAF |
- Addresses the needs of the UK Ministry of Defence
- Similar to DoDAF, allowing for international collaboration
- Supports complex system integrations
- Focuses on interoperability within the defense sector
- Provides a robust structure for managing change
|
- Not as widely used outside the UK defense context
- May be overly complex for non-defense organizations
- Requires extensive training and expertise
- May be too prescriptive in its approach
- Adapting to non-defense needs can be challenging
|
ArchiMate |
- Standardized visual modeling language for EA
- Strong support for business process modeling
- Integrates with other EA frameworks like TOGAF
- Backed by The Open Group
- Facilitates understanding and communication.
|
- May require additional training for proper use
- Focused more on documentation than execution
- Can be complex and overwhelming for beginners
- Requires tool support for full functionality
- Less prescriptive about the process
|
Gartner |
- Provides a strategic focus aligning with business goals
- Adaptable to the changing business landscape
- Backed by extensive research and advisory expertise
- Supports digital business transformation
- Promotes a flexible and less dogmatic approach to EA
|
- Can be expensive due to the reliance on Gartner’s advisory services
- May be too high-level for technical implementation details
- Advice may be generic and not tailored to specific organizations
- Reliance on Gartner’s ecosystem for full benefits
- May lack detailed guidance for implementation
|
PEAF (Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework) |
- Emphasizes practicality and ease of use
- Focuses on quick wins and straightforward implementation
- Suitable for small to medium-sized enterprises
- Provides tools and techniques for immediate value
- Covers the full EA lifecycle
|
- Less known and recognized than other frameworks
- May lack the depth required for larger organizations
- Newer and less proven in the market
- Certification and training resources are less available
- May be too simplistic for complex enterprise needs
|
EAP (Enterprise Architecture Planning) |
- Aligns closely with business strategy
- Effective for initial planning and alignment
- Straightforward and easy to understand
- Facilitates quick start for EA initiatives
- Emphasizes the importance of data architecture
|
- Considered outdated by some professionals
- Lacks guidance on ongoing governance and maintenance
- Does not cover detailed implementation strategies
- May not address current IT trends and practices
- Less comprehensive than other modern frameworks
|
IEF (Integrated Enterprise Framework) |
- Aims for comprehensive integration across EA facets
- Supports a holistic view of the enterprise
- Facilitates detailed analysis and planning
- Designed for complex and diverse IT environments
- Promotes consistency and standardization
|
- Can be overly complex and detailed
- Requires a high level of expertise to implement effectively
- May be too cumbersome for agile or smaller organizations
- Potential for high implementation costs
- Risk of becoming too internally focused
|