Enterprise Architecture Comparasion

The leading enterprise-architecture methodologies are very different in their approaches. Which one is best for your organization? There is no one answer to this question. I'll take you through the 12 criteria that I most often use for comparing and evaluating enterprise-architectural methodologies. Not all of these criteria might be relevant to your organization, and some might be more important than others. But, at least, this section can serve as a starting point for your own evaluation.
I'll rank each methodology in each criteria. The ratings will be assigned as follows:
1: Does a very poor job in this area
2: Does an inadequate job in this area
3: Does an acceptable job in this area
4: Does a very good job in this area
Keep in mind that these ratings are subjective. I'm sure most people would disagree with at least one of my ratings.
Taxonomy completeness refers to how well you can use the methodology to classify the various architectural artifacts. This is almost the entire focus of Zachman. None of the other methodologies focuses as much on this area. Ratings:
Zachman: 4
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 2
Gartner: 1
Process completeness refers to how fully the methodology guides you through a step-by-step process for creating an enterprise architecture. This is almost the entire focus of TOGAF, with its Architecture Development Method (ADM). Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 2
Gartner: 3
Reference-model guidance refers to how useful the methodology is in helping you build a relevant set of reference models. This is almost the entire focus of FEA. TOGAF also provides support; however, I am less impressed with the TOGAF reference models. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 3
FEA: 4
Gartner: 1
Practice guidance refers to how much the methodology helps you assimilate the mindset of enterprise architecture into your organization and develop a culture in which it is valued and used. This is a primary focus of Gartner's architectural practice. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 2
Gartner: 4
Maturity model refers to how much guidance the methodology gives you in assessing the effectiveness and maturity of different organizations within your enterprise in using enterprise architecture. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 1
FEA: 3
Gartner: 2
Business focus refers to whether the methodology will focus on using technology to drive business value, in which business value is specifically defined as either reduced expenses and/or increased income. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 1
Gartner: 4
Governance guidance refers to how much help the methodology will be in understanding and creating an effective governance model for enterprise architecture. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 3
Gartner: 3
Partitioning guidance refers to how well the methodology will guide you into effective autonomous partitions of the enterprise, which is an important approach to managing complexity. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 4
Gartner: 3
Prescriptive catalog refers to how well the methodology guides you in setting up a catalogue of architectural assets that can be reused in future activities. Ratings
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 2
FEA: 4
Gartner: 2
Vendor neutrality refers to how likely you are to get locked-in to a specific consulting organization by adopting this methodology. A high rating here indicates low vendor lock-in. Ratings:
Zachman: 2
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 3
Gartner: 1
Information availability refers to the amount and quality of free or inexpensive information about this methodology. Ratings:
Zachman: 2
TOGAF: 4
FEA: 2
Gartner: 1
Time to value refers to the length of time you will likely be using this methodology before you start using it to build solutions that deliver high business value. Ratings:
Zachman: 1
TOGAF: 3
FEA: 1
Gartner: 4
Summarization














Criteria and ratings for each methodology
One of the important point is that none of the enterprise-architecture methodologies is really complete. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
How do you choose which methodology is best for you? Here is my recommended approach:
Go through the rows (criteria), eliminating any that you feel are not important to your organization.
Add any additional rows (criteria) that you feel are important, and rate each of the methodologies in that area.
Change any of my ratings with which you disagree.
At the end of this exercise, you should have a good idea about the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology with respect to your enterprise's needs. If a clear winner emerges, count yourself lucky. Find a consultant who specializes in helping enterprises implement that methodology, and go for it.
For many organizations, there will be no clear winner. For such organizations, I recommend you use a blended approach, in which you create your own enterprise-architectural methodology consisting of bits and pieces of each of the methodologies that provide the highest value in your specific areas of concern.
You will want a different kind of consultant—one who has a broad perspective of all of these methodologies and specializes in helping enterprises create a methodology that works best, given the specific needs and political realities of that enterprise.