For years, TOGAF has been the standard framework in enterprise architecture — but many organisations are quietly adapting, slimming down, or replacing it with lighter, outcome-first approaches.
Here’s what the research shows:
TOGAF is rarely followed “out of the box”
An in-depth case study found none of the TOGAF-specific recommendations were used as-is. Teams customised heavily to fit reality — and cut the documentation bloat.
EA is blending with Agile & Lean
EA teams in leading firms now focus on delivering architectural decisions, patterns, and references — not 200-page documents. This embeds architecture in delivery without slowing it down.
Agile EA governance is gaining traction
Consultancies like KPMG are promoting lightweight EA governance models — iterative, transparent, and tied to measurable outcomes — instead of rigid oversight.
TOGAF
- Document-heavy
- Compliance-centred
- Slow to implement
CSVLOD
- Lightweight
- Delivery-aligned
- Fast to implement
Why CSVLOD fits the shift
CSVLOD stands for Considerations, Standards, Visions, Landscapes, Outlines, Designs— six general types of enterprise architecture artefact. It’s lightweight, delivery-aligned, and fast to implement — without sacrificing architectural integrity.
My take
The framework matters less than the outcomes it enables. Whether you run TOGAF, CSVLOD, or a hybrid, the test is the same: does architecture speed up good decisions, or slow them down? Have you moved away from TOGAF in favour of a leaner, delivery-focused framework? Join the discussion on the original post.