There are a myriad of other Architecture Frameworks that are listed on Wikipedia. Most of these are specific to Nations, or departments within national government so are not explicitly listed here.
The most important thing to recognise is that a framework is a framework, work out where your problems are, and tailor choose, combine and adapt frameworks to address those problems. The result should provide 1) a common language, and 2) a common approach to architecture. If you can achieve both of these by ‘common sense’ then you’ve cracked it, but the bigger your EA practice and more diverse the experience of your EA practitioners the more likely you are to need to formalise that common sense as it applies to your organisation. After all ALL of these frameworks are, at their inception, one individuals view of what common sense is.
The most commonly used frameworks are listed below, use them as reference but be careful in their application. In todays fast moving world they ALL, without exception, fail if they are applied in an overly cumbersome way. Think ‘lite’. Never focus on the framework, focus on business outcomes. No-one on the C-Suite cares about which framework was used, they care about the business results.
TOGAF – The employers favourite…yawn. It’s not a methodology. Though the ADM is.
NAF v4 – NATO Framework (and methodology) used by defence organisations and their suppliers. Implementable in both ArchiMate and UAF modelling languages. Successor to MoDAF (UK) and DoDAF (US)
UAF – specific profile of UML and SysML developed for NAF but also applicable to business
Zachmann – less a framework, more an ontology of artefacts. There is no methodology here
BIZBOK – Focussed on Business Architecture and Business – IT alignment, limited coverage in the detail of technology. Paywalled.
ArchiMate: A flexible modelling language rather than an entire framework. Commonly used but can be complex to learn. Requires an OpenGroup account to view the specification.
Gartner Enterprise Architecture Framework: Principles-based framework is easy to understand and apply. It is flexible, scalable, and technology-neutral. However, it might be too high-level and lack the detail required for more complex or specialized organizations.
Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture (SABSA): Focused on security.