Skip to content

EA Frameworks Compared — Zachman, TOGAF, EA on a Page, and How They Fit Together

Enterprise architecture has no shortage of frameworks. But most practitioners use bits and pieces from several rather than adopting one wholesale. This article maps the relationships between the frameworks in Linked.Archi and shows how they complement each other in practice.

The Landscape

Each framework addresses a different question:

Framework Core Question What It Provides
Zachman (1987) "What artifacts exist?" A 6×6 classification matrix — what to describe, from whose perspective
TOGAF (1995→2022) "How do we govern architecture?" A process (ADM), a content metamodel, viewpoints, and deliverable templates
EA on a Page (2017) "What actually works?" An empirically validated artifact taxonomy (CSVLOD) and three core processes
ADMIT (2013) "What forces drive decisions?" 20 design forces, architecture levels, domains, and a development lifecycle
BTABoK (2014→) "What should architects know?" A competency model, engagement model, and practice guidance
BizBOK (2014→) "How do we model the business?" Capability maps, value streams, organization maps, information maps

None of these is complete on its own. Together, they cover the full spectrum of EA practice.

Zachman × EA on a Page — Classification Meets Evidence

Zachman and EA on a Page are the most complementary pair. Zachman classifies artifacts by perspective and interrogative (a 6×6 grid). EA on a Page classifies artifacts by usage and purpose (the CSVLOD taxonomy). These are orthogonal dimensions — you can apply both to the same artifact.

The Mapping

EA on a Page (CSVLOD) Zachman Perspective Zachman Interrogative Example Artifact
Considerations (Principles) Executive (Planner) Why (Motivation) Architecture Principles
Standards (Tech Ref Models) Architect (Designer) How (Function) + What (Data) Technology Reference Model
Visions (Capability Models) Business Mgmt (Owner) What (Data) + Why (Motivation) Business Capability Map
Visions (Target Architecture) Architect (Designer) How (Function) + Where (Network) Target State Architecture
Visions (Roadmaps) Executive (Planner) When (Time) IT Roadmap
Landscapes (Inventories) Engineer (Builder) What (Data) + How (Function) Application Portfolio
Landscapes (Integration Maps) Architect (Designer) Where (Network) + How (Function) Integration Landscape
Outlines (Solution Overviews) Architect (Designer) How + What + Where Solution Overview
Designs (Solution Designs) Engineer (Builder) How + What + Where + Who Detailed Design

Using Both in Linked.Archi

@prefix eaop: <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#> .
@prefix zach: <https://meta.linked.archi/zachman#> .
@prefix arch: <https://meta.linked.archi/core#> .
@prefix ex:   <https://model.example.com/myea#> .

# A business capability model classified by both frameworks
ex:CapabilityModel a arch:Model, eaop:Vision ;
    skos:prefLabel "Enterprise Capability Model"@en ;
    arch:viewpointCoversAspect zach:What ;
    arch:viewpointFromPerspective zach:BusinessManagementPerspective ;
    eaop:artifactScope "organization-wide" ;
    eaop:artifactLifecycle "long-lived" .

# An integration landscape diagram
ex:IntegrationMap a arch:Diagram, eaop:Landscape ;
    skos:prefLabel "System Integration Map"@en ;
    arch:viewpointCoversAspect zach:Where ;
    arch:viewpointFromPerspective zach:ArchitectPerspective ;
    eaop:artifactScope "organization-wide" ;
    eaop:artifactLifecycle "long-lived" .

Completeness Analysis

Zachman's value is as a completeness check. By cross-referencing your EA on a Page artifacts against the Zachman grid, you can spot gaps:

PREFIX eaop: <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#>
PREFIX zach: <https://meta.linked.archi/zachman#>

# Which Zachman cells have no artifacts?
SELECT ?interrogative ?perspective WHERE {
    ?interrogative skos:broader zach:Interrogative .
    ?perspective skos:broader zach:Perspective .
    FILTER NOT EXISTS {
        ?artifact arch:viewpointCoversAspect ?interrogative ; arch:viewpointFromPerspective ?perspective .
    }
}

TOGAF × EA on a Page — Process Meets Evidence

TOGAF provides a detailed process (ADM) and content metamodel. EA on a Page provides an empirically validated view of what artifacts and processes actually work. The relationship is clarifying — EA on a Page shows which parts of TOGAF organizations actually use.

Process Mapping

EA on a Page Process TOGAF ADM Phases What Happens
Strategic Planning Preliminary, Phase A (Vision), Phase B-D (Architecture) Business strategy → IT investment portfolio
Initiative Delivery Phase E (Opportunities), Phase F (Migration), Phase G (Implementation) Investment → working solution
Technology Optimization Phase H (Change Management), continuous Rationalize the IT landscape

Artifact Mapping

EA on a Page Artifact TOGAF Deliverable TOGAF ADM Phase
Principles Architecture Principles Preliminary
Business Capability Models Business Architecture (Phase B) Phase B
Target State Architectures Target Architecture Phases B-D
Roadmaps Architecture Roadmap Phase E-F
Landscape Diagrams Baseline Architecture Phases B-D
Solution Overviews Architecture Definition Document Phase E
Solution Designs Transition Architecture Phase F
Technology Reference Models Standards Information Base Preliminary

The Honest Assessment

Kotusev's research found that organizations rarely follow the full TOGAF ADM. Instead, they converge on three processes (Strategic Planning, Initiative Delivery, Technology Optimization) regardless of which framework they claim to use. EA on a Page captures this reality.

In Linked.Archi, both are available. Use TOGAF's content metamodel for the entity types (Capability, Organization, DataEntity, etc.) and EA on a Page's CSVLOD for classifying the artifacts you produce.

ADMIT × EA on a Page — Forces Meet Artifacts

ADMIT's design forces describe what influences architecture decisions. EA on a Page's artifacts describe what you produce. Together, they answer: "what forces drove the creation of this artifact?"

The Connection

ADMIT's 20 design forces map to the forces that shape each CSVLOD artifact type:

CSVLOD Type Primary ADMIT Forces
Considerations (Principles) Business, Enterprise, Security, Cost
Standards (Tech Ref Models) Platform, Infrastructure, Integration, Implementation/Pattern
Visions (Capability Models) Business, Future, Enterprise
Landscapes (Inventories) Enterprise, Infrastructure, Network, Storage
Outlines (Solution Overviews) Business, Operation, Change, Simplicity
Designs (Solution Designs) Implementation/Pattern, Integration, Platform, Security

In Linked.Archi, you can link ADMIT forces to EA on a Page artifacts through the decisions extension:

@prefix ad:    <https://meta.linked.archi/arch-decision#> .
@prefix admit: <https://meta.linked.archi/admit/onto#> .
@prefix eaop:  <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#> .
@prefix ex:    <https://model.example.com/myea#> .

# A decision to create a technology reference model
ex:ADR-TRM a ad:Decision ;
    skos:prefLabel "Establish Technology Reference Model"@en ;
    ad:influencedByForce ex:PlatformStandardization, ex:IntegrationSimplification ;
    ad:relatedConcept ex:TechRefModel .

ex:PlatformStandardization a admit:PlatformForce ;
    skos:prefLabel "Reduce platform sprawl"@en .

ex:IntegrationSimplification a admit:IntegrationForce ;
    skos:prefLabel "Standardize integration patterns"@en .

ex:TechRefModel a arch:Model, eaop:Standard ;
    skos:prefLabel "Enterprise Technology Reference Model"@en .

Zachman × TOGAF — Classification Meets Content

Zachman's interrogatives map to TOGAF's architecture domains:

Zachman Interrogative TOGAF Domain
What (Data) Data Architecture (Phase C)
How (Function) Application Architecture (Phase C)
Where (Network) Technology Architecture (Phase D)
Who (People) Business Architecture (Phase B) — Organization
When (Time) Migration Planning (Phase E-F)
Why (Motivation) Business Architecture (Phase B) — Strategy

Zachman's perspectives map to TOGAF's stakeholders and abstraction levels:

Zachman Perspective TOGAF Equivalent
Executive (Planner) CIO, Business Owner
Business Management (Owner) Business Architect
Architect (Designer) Enterprise/Solution Architect
Engineer (Builder) Application/Technology Architect
Technician (Implementer) Developer, DBA
User (Worker) End User

How they coexist in the knowledge graph

In Linked.Archi, all these frameworks coexist in the same graph. An architecture artifact can be simultaneously:

  • A TOGAF deliverable (typed with togaf: classes)
  • Classified by EA on a Page CSVLOD type (typed with eaop: classes)
  • Tagged with Zachman perspective and interrogative (via arch:viewpointCoversAspect and arch:viewpointFromPerspective)
  • Driven by ADMIT forces (via ad:influencedByForce)
  • Aligned with BTABoK practices (via rdfs:seeAlso)
  • Covering BizBOK domains (via TOGAF/ArchiMate capability and value stream classes)

Frameworks are not competing alternatives — they're complementary classification lenses over the same architectural knowledge. You don't pick one; you use whichever combination answers your questions.

PREFIX eaop:    <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#>
PREFIX zach:    <https://meta.linked.archi/zachman#>
PREFIX togaf:   <https://meta.linked.archi/togaf/onto#>
PREFIX admittax: <https://meta.linked.archi/admit/tax#>

# Show all artifacts with their multi-framework classification
SELECT ?artifact ?label ?csvlodType ?zachmanInterrogative ?zachmanPerspective WHERE {
    ?artifact skos:prefLabel ?label ;
              a ?csvlodType .
    VALUES ?csvlodType {
        eaop:Consideration eaop:Standard eaop:Vision
        eaop:Landscape eaop:Outline eaop:Design
    }
    OPTIONAL {
        ?artifact arch:viewpointCoversAspect ?zachmanInterrogative .
        ?zachmanInterrogative skos:broader zach:Interrogative .
    }
    OPTIONAL {
        ?artifact arch:viewpointFromPerspective ?zachmanPerspective .
        ?zachmanPerspective skos:broader zach:Perspective .
    }
}

Recommendations

If you need... Use
A content metamodel with entity types TOGAF ontology + ArchiMate
An artifact classification system EA on a Page (CSVLOD)
A completeness check for your artifacts Zachman (6×6 grid)
A design forces checklist for decisions ADMIT
Practitioner guidance and competencies BTABoK
Business architecture mapping BizBOK concepts via TOGAF/ArchiMate
Application portfolio rationalization TIME framework

All of these share arch:core — use any combination without integration overhead.

References