Types of Enterprise Architecture

In a recent article at Inside Architecture, Nick Malik took time to detail the different enterprise architecture frameworks. He then goes on to pose the question, what would the ideal framework be? What would you take from each of the individual methods below to make your enterprise architecture fit your needs?

- TOGAF - Basic strength: solution architecture. Various models and how to create them. Basic weaknesses: Planning methods and governance framework. Weak on Information Architecture

- FEAF - Basic strength: complete implementation tied to measurement framework. Basic weaknesses: very specific to government, lack of independent process taxonomy keeps processes "in the silo."

- eTOM - Basic strength: excellent process taxonomy with rich details. Strong information architecture. Great for governing external vendors. Basic weaknesses: fairly specific to telecom industry, gaps in governance and enterprise architecture models.

- ITIL - Basic strength: excellent process framework for operations and (now) governance. Basic weaknesses: no architectural methodology to speak of. Sizeable gaps in information or application architecture.

- Enterprise Unified Process - Basic strength: soup-to-nuts coverage of enterprise software development processes, including funding and operations. Basic weaknesses: poor adoption rate and lack of a governing body to allow for growth, minimal architectural methods, no enterprise process or capability framework.

- Zachman - Basic strength: comprehensive taxonomy of architectural artifacts (to let you know when you are done). Basic weaknesses: Lack of published and vetted methods to avoid "boil-the-ocean" exercises and focus on one particular benefit. Very shallow: No detailed process, capability, or solution frameworks for "level 2" detail. Highly proprietary.