EA Framework Selection
Choosing how much formal enterprise architecture method an organisation needs, on the basis that most need considerably less than the frameworks describe.
The frameworks differ less than their advocates suggest. TOGAF supplies a development method and a content structure. Zachman is a classification schema — a grid of perspectives against interrogatives — and is a taxonomy rather than a process. ArchiMate is a modelling notation. FEAF and similar public-sector frameworks add reference models for their context.
They are complementary rather than competing: a method, a taxonomy and a notation address different needs.
The selection question that actually matters is how much formality the organisation can absorb. A framework applied beyond an organisation's appetite produces documentation nobody reads and a function nobody consults — which is the origin of enterprise architecture's reputation.
The pragmatic position, and the one most organisations should hold: take the vocabulary and the checklists, leave the completeness. Specifically, use a consistent notation so diagrams are comparable, keep a capability map and an application landscape current, maintain decision records, and attach the work to live programmes.
The test to apply to any EA artefact: which decision does this inform, and who is waiting for it? An artefact that cannot answer should not be produced, however complete the framework says the model should be.