A year after obtaining my TOGAF 10 certification, one question gnaws at me: despite their undeniable strengths, are enterprise architecture frameworks valued appropriately in France, or are we facing a quiet indifference?
Let’s briefly recall that an enterprise architecture framework is a structured set of principles, methods, and tools designed to plan, design, and manage the evolution of an organization’s architecture. Its aim is to provide a holistic view, integrating business concerns, processes, applications, data, and the underlying technology infrastructure. Among the most recognized frameworks are:
> TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework): a comprehensive and detailed framework for the development and management of enterprise architecture.
> Zachman Framework
> FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework)
The Figure That Raises Questions
During my TOGAF 10 certification course, our trainer warned us that fewer than a hundred French architects were certified in this new version of the framework at that time. For a publication dating from 2022, that figure is striking. Is it due to a mismatch between the availability of training and examination materials in French, or to a perception of obsolescence for a framework that is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, a “prehistoric” age in the IT world?
A Reluctant Adoption
Historically, TOGAF adoption in France has differed from that observed in Anglo-Saxon countries or within certain multinational corporations. While it is present and used, particularly in large enterprises (with the banking and insurance sectors leading the way), it has never enjoyed the same ubiquity or perceived legitimacy.
I have identified several avenues to explain this particular dynamic, which I would like to share to kick off the discussion:
1 – The Prevalence of Empirical and “Homegrown” Approaches: Many French organizations, especially large institutions and national industries, have developed their own methodologies for analyzing and developing their enterprise architecture. These approaches, often highly detailed and refined over years of experience, have proven effective in addressing sharp sector-specific needs. Their proven effectiveness can legitimately deter the adoption of a ready-to-use framework, perceived as an unnecessary disruption.
2 – The Influence of Consulting Firms and ESN: The heavy reliance on external IT engineering and consulting in France, via ESN and consulting firms, plays a role. These providers sometimes promote their own internal methodologies or frameworks, developed and tailored by their teams. Having contributed to this dynamic in the past, I realize that this approach often stems from thorough training and familiarity with these “in-house” frameworks, enabling a controlled execution of architecture missions for clients.
3 – The Perception of Complexity and Burden: TOGAF, with its richness and completeness, is sometimes seen – rightly or wrongly – as heavy to implement, requiring substantial resources and time investment. This perception can discourage many organizations. Yet it’s crucial to remember that TOGAF is an adaptable framework: a methodological guide and a toolset with which one must learn to “play” and tailor (potentially in synergy with other approaches) to derive best practices and address the specifics of your context. It’s not a bible to be followed verbatim from A to Z.
4 – The Competition from Other Approaches: Other approaches, less formalized than TOGAF but perceived as simpler or more agile, can also capture attention. Scaling Agile (via frameworks like SAFe), which integrates notions of continuous architecture, can sometimes be considered sufficient, relegating the interest in a dedicated enterprise-architecture framework like TOGAF.
5 – A European Ecosystem Less Heavily Regulated: This is arguably the aspect that concerns me the most since my certification. The absence of a direct legal requirement in France (or Europe) for private companies to adopt an enterprise-architecture framework like TOGAF is a key factor. Unlike the United States, where the Clinger-Cohen Act (1996) obliges federal agencies and their partners to maintain an architected framework documented via the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) — a framework akin to TOGAF in essence but more tailored to governmental specifics — Europe relies more on perceived internal benefits rather than legal obligation. This partly explains the French-US disparity in The Open Group membership (36 French companies versus over 475 American ones).
AI: A New Challenge for Enterprise Architecture?
The rise of AI-native companies raises an additional question: are traditional enterprise-architecture frameworks, often perceived as rigid and formal, still suitable for organizations where artificial intelligence lies at the heart of every process, where experimentation is the norm, and where evolution happens at a breakneck pace?
These companies inherently favor:
> Rapid experimentation and continuous iteration: Development cycles are short, AI models evolve constantly, and architectures must adapt in real time to new technological advances and data.
> Composable and event-driven architectures: Fewer monoliths, more autonomous microservices, APIs, and asynchronous data flows that facilitate the integration of AI and machine learning capabilities.
> AI-centered data governance: Data quality, traceability, and ethics become even more pressing concerns, sometimes at the expense of traditional views on applications and infrastructure.
> A culture of learning and adaptation: Architecture is no longer a static action plan, but a living organism that must incorporate AI feedback loops to continuously improve.
In this context, enterprise-architecture frameworks like TOGAF, with their structured processes and strong emphasis on documentation, can sometimes be seen as a brake on the agility required.
However, this perception is often tied to poor implementation. An enterprise architect trained in these frameworks knows they are not cages, but modular toolkits. The real question is therefore: how can we adapt these robust frameworks so they become enablers of innovation and agility in an AI-native world, rather than relics of the past? The challenge is to leverage the holistic vision they offer while incorporating the flexibility and experimentation inherent to AI.
A Promising Trend to Meet New Challenges
Fortunately, the professionalization of enterprise architecture in France is a clear and positive trend. For a long time perceived in a narrow way (IT urban planner, IT documentarian), the discipline is maturing and gaining recognition. This manifests in:
> The structuring of dedicated entities for IT strategy and enterprise architecture within large organizations
> The rising value placed on the role of the Enterprise Architect, increasingly aligned with the company’s overall strategy.
> The near-systematic integration of enterprise architecture as a strategic lever for the success of major digital transformation programs.
These three markers advocate for anchoring work in a rigorous methodological framework like TOGAF to structure efforts and professionalize the support provided. But the advent of AI also pushes us to reassess and adapt these frameworks to keep them relevant and high-performing. It is no longer enough to design architectures that are stable and resilient 3-5 years out; we must now orchestrate intelligently autonomous, diverse, and rapidly evolving systems toward a common vision!
* Dimitri Ho is an Enterprise Architect at SNCF Connect & Tech
