Frameworks on Trial: Which Framework Is Guilty of Slowing Us Down?

Greetings, digital barristers of the boardroom!

Today, the Court of Enterprise Efficiency is in session, and the docket is... full of frameworks. On trial: TOGAF, SAFe, ITIL, Zachman, and a mysterious unnamed "proprietary agile-adjacent methodology" last seen scribbled on a napkin during an offsite.

The Main Story: The Case of the Clogged Deliverables

It began like any typical transformation initiative — big goals, bigger Gantt charts, and a dozen frameworks marching in like consultants at a buffet.

Suddenly, nothing was getting delivered. Meetings multiplied like rabbits.
"Who's responsible for this work package?" someone asked.
"According to ITIL, it's the Service Owner."
"TOGAF says it's the Capability Lead."
"SAFe says it’s a Product Owner—but only after PI Planning."
"Zachman says... wait, is that a person or a grid?"

As deliverables missed deadlines and decision matrices became actual puzzles, the enterprise cried out: “One of these frameworks is clearly guilty of slowing us down!”

A courtroom drama unfolded. Each framework took the stand.
TOGAF objected to being lumped in with the others.
ITIL cited "service stability" as its alibi.
SAFe launched a slide deck mid-trial.
Zachman submitted a six-dimensional artifact nobody could read.

And the agile team? They refused to attend, citing "self-organization."

TOGAF to the Rescue (Sort Of)

Just as the trial was descending into a postmodern kabuki of governance chaos, TOGAF stood up, dramatically flipping open a fresh Architecture Repository.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” TOGAF began, adjusting its metaphorical spectacles, “you’re not supposed to stack frameworks like Jenga blocks in a wind tunnel. Use me to integrate, not accumulate. Select what fits your capability needs. And for the love of architecture, define your ADM tailored approach first.”

The room went quiet. Even SAFe nodded. ITIL crossed its process fingers.

Case adjourned.

Educational Twist: Tailoring Frameworks the TOGAF Way

• Start with your organizational context: Don’t default to full-stack frameworks unless you also want full-stack confusion.

• Use TOGAF’s ADM as a backbone: It plays well with others—if you invite them intentionally.

• Define roles clearly across frameworks—avoid overlap wars.

• Governance doesn’t mean paralysis: Tailor governance to be enabling, not constraining.

Humor in Diagrams

Poll for Readers

Which framework has most slowed you down in real life?

• TOGAF

• SAFe

• ITIL

• Zachman

• All of the above... simultaneously

Next Week’s Tease

Stakeholder Wrangling 101: Dealing with the ‘this-wasn’t-my-idea’ crowd.
Diplomacy, donuts, and duct tape.