TEAF versus TOGAF, ITIL, COBIT and SAFe: who does what

The first question asked of TEAF, almost systematically, is this: another new enterprise architecture framework, replacing which of the previous ones? The answer is that none is replaced. TEAF positions itself as a continuous orchestration layer added on top of frameworks proven over two decades of industrial practice — not one more competitor in an already saturated market of methods.

TOGAF and ArchiMate — the methodological backbone

TOGAF remains the methodological and governance backbone of enterprise architecture within TEAF. It isn't competed with: TOGAF continues to structure the overall approach, the ADM and upstream governance. ArchiMate remains the reference notation for representing TEAF models — the loop, the metamodel, the artifacts are drawn in ArchiMate, which stays a view, never TEAF itself. Neither needs TEAF to be valid; it's TEAF that needs them to function.

ITIL and COBIT — operational management and control

ITIL, now owned by Axelos then PeopleCert, keeps its role in operational IT service management — incidents, changes, service catalog. COBIT continues to govern and control information systems, audit and compliance broadly. TEAF doesn't seek to replace either: the TEAF loop orchestrates architecture decisions, it doesn't rewrite service management or control frameworks.

SAFe — agile coordination, a scope TEAF doesn't address

SAFe keeps large-scale agile team coordination — a scope TEAF deliberately doesn't address. An organization deploying SAFe to synchronize its product teams and TEAF to orchestrate its architecture governance isn't making a contradictory choice: the two answer different questions, one about delivery cadence, the other about decision traceability.

What TEAF adds, precisely

What remains unique to TEAF, beyond these five inherited frameworks, is narrower but more structuring: a closed eight-component Loop — Intent, Capability, Knowledge, Decision, Automation, Execution, Observation, Learning — that TEAF assembles with named governance roles. None of these five frameworks links these eight steps in a single, closed, end-to-end instrumented cycle. It's this complete closure, from the Intent component through the Learning component, that existing frameworks lack when taken separately — and it's what TEAF offers as its contribution.

• TOGAF and ArchiMate remain the reference method and notation; TEAF doesn't replace them.
• ITIL keeps operational service management, COBIT keeps governance and control.
• SAFe keeps large-scale agile coordination, a scope outside TEAF's field.
• What remains unique to TEAF: the closed eight-component Loop and the governance roles that run it.