Comparative Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: TOGAF, Zachman and FEAF

This paper explores the critical role of enterprise architecture (EA) in contemporary organizational management, with particular emphasis on digital transformation. EA frameworks, by providing structured methodologies, enable organizations to strategically design, manage, and align IT capabilities with business objectives. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three widely recognized EA frameworks: TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework), Zachman, and FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework). The objective is to assess the relative strengths and limitations of each framework and evaluate their suitability across different organizational contexts. Data were collected through a combination of academic literature, case studies, and survey responses from enterprise architecture professionals in Slovak public and private sector organizations. Methodologically, a multi-criteria evaluation approach was applied, focusing on key dimensions such as methodological structure, process integration, flexibility, scalability, and support for IT strategy management. The findings highlight distinct advantages within each framework—TOGAF’s implementation-oriented structure, Zachman’s conceptual adaptability for documentation, and FEAF’s alignment with public-sector governance models. The study also identifies challenges related to resource intensity, implementation complexity, and limited adaptability, especially in fast-changing environments. Based on the results, practical recommendations are provided to guide framework selection and adaptation based on organizational needs, strategic priorities, and transformation readiness. Additionally, the study suggests the potential value of hybrid approaches that combine elements of multiple frameworks as a flexible solution for organizations navigating complex and evolving digital ecosystems.