This exploratory Enterprise Architecture case study examines how a large organization used TOGAF as a starting point but ultimately created a customized enterprise architecture model. It explains what parts of the framework were kept, what was discarded, and how the organization built an EA practice that delivered real value—offering actionable lessons.
Enterprise architecture (EA) has long been positioned as a strategic enabler—its promise: clarity amid complexity, alignment between business and IT, and a coherent roadmap for digital transformation. TOGAF, the most cited and adopted EA framework globally, purports to offer the blueprint for achieving these outcomes. With its structured methodologies, taxonomy of artifacts, and prescribed development cycle, TOGAF has become synonymous with the practice of enterprise architecture. But what happens when a framework designed for universality confronts the messy particularities of a real organization?
This question was examined through a rigorous exploratory case study of a large, technology-forward institution operating in a highly diversified, project-intensive environment. The organization adopted TOGAF as its official EA foundation. Certification was widespread among architecture staff, and executive-level endorsement gave the framework a formal mandate. The setting appeared ideal for textbook implementation. Yet what unfolded was a striking divergence between theory and execution.
Despite its official use of TOGAF, the organization systematically set aside the very elements that define the framework. The Architecture Development Method (ADM), TOGAF’s structural spine, was deemed impractical. The architecture content framework went unused. The enterprise continuum and terminology were largely ignored. In its place, a lightweight, organically evolved architecture practice emerged—one that privileged responsiveness, collaboration, and contextual relevance over rigid compliance. What the architects embraced was not the method, but the mindset: an adaptive, stakeholder-centered approach that privileged outcomes over orthodoxy.
This disconnect did not arise from oversight or inexperience—it was a conscious response to lived constraints. Architects described TOGAF as excessively procedural and ill-suited to the dynamics of their operating model. Efforts to implement it mechanically led to overengineered documents, stalled delivery cycles, and disengaged stakeholders. The framework's promise of integration was overshadowed by its complexity. TOGAF’s strength on paper became a liability in practice, pushing the organization to question not only how frameworks should be used—but whether they are usable at all in unmodified form.
Faced with this impasse, the organization did not abandon enterprise architecture. Instead, it reimagined it. It replaced prescriptive process models with a clear but flexible structure tailored to how work actually got done. The architecture team created a bespoke set of documents—roadmaps, capability models, conceptual architectures—that served real planning and governance functions, not theoretical checklists. EA outputs were embedded into funding decisions, technology standards, and project design. Stakeholder engagement was operationalized through roles like engagement managers, who translated strategic intent into actionable requirements without relying on abstract modeling languages. EA lived not in proprietary repositories, but in collaborative tools used across the enterprise. Architecture, in this setting, became a function of value—not of vocabulary.
This case is not an outlier; it is a mirror. It reflects a reality that many CIOs, CTOs, and architecture leaders quietly acknowledge: that formal frameworks often fail to survive contact with operational complexity. What succeeds is not doctrinal purity, but contextual intelligence—the ability to absorb, adapt, and operationalize only what serves the enterprise’s goals.
This EA case study does not offer a template. It offers something more vital: proof that enterprise architecture can be both disciplined and dynamic, strategic and situational. And it reminds us that frameworks, however authoritative, must remain tools—not tenets.
Main Contents
- A detailed case study of a large organization’s attempt to implement TOGAF as its enterprise architecture framework.
- A critical comparison between TOGAF’s prescribed methodology and the actual practices adopted within the organization.
- A breakdown of the organization’s homegrown EA processes, roles, and documentation tailored to real-world constraints.
- An analysis of why core components of TOGAF, including ADM and ACF, were deemed impractical or ineffective in context.
- A reflection on the broader implications for EA theory, practice, and the applicability of frameworks across diverse environments.
Key Takeaways
- Declaring adherence to TOGAF does not equate to following its methodology in practice.
- Organizations often retain only high-level concepts from EA frameworks while discarding their structure and processes.
- Practical EA requires tailoring methods to the organization’s culture, governance, and pace—not rigidly applying formal models.
- Frameworks like TOGAF risk becoming symbolic if they fail to translate into actionable, stakeholder-driven practices.
- Real enterprise architecture success stems from adaptability, contextual design, and a relentless focus on delivering value.
CIOs and IT leaders often grapple with the tension between strategic IT alignment and the operational realities of delivering value across complex, evolving enterprises. While enterprise architecture is meant to bridge this gap, reliance on formal frameworks like TOGAF frequently leads to rigid, underperforming practices that fail to gain traction. This TOGAF-based case study offers a rare, demonstrative view into how one organization navigated this challenge by rethinking its approach to EA. It provides evidence and insight that can help leaders build architecture functions that are not only theoretically sound but operationally viable.
- Assess framework relevance in context: This case study shows how TOGAF can be selectively applied—or consciously set aside—based on organizational maturity, structure, and culture, helping CIOs decide what to keep and what to discard.
- Build stakeholder-centered EA practices: By examining the roles of engagement managers, architects, and business users, IT leaders can learn how to structure communication pathways that make EA relevant to real-world decision-making.
- Prioritize outcomes over formalism: This case study demonstrates how an outcomes-first mindset can lead to more agile, sustainable architecture practices that support business goals without being bound by complex frameworks.
- Identify practical EA deliverables: CIOs can use the real-world documentation categories and processes highlighted—like capability models, conceptual architectures, and roadmaps—as templates for streamlining their own EA functions.
- Challenge EA-as-certification mindsets: This case study provides a compelling case against equating EA maturity with certification or framework adoption, encouraging leaders to focus on organizational fit and actual impact.
This TOGAF-based case study equips CIOs and IT leaders with grounded, actionable insights into how enterprise architecture can evolve from a theoretical exercise into a practical discipline. By using it as a diagnostic and design tool, they can reshape their architecture functions to better meet the demands of modern IT governance and business transformation.
