Comparing SAF with external approaches
This section tests SAF's boundaries in two directions: architecture approaches and IT management. It does not claim compatibility, conformance, or certification and does not change the normative core of SAF 0.7.0. The architecture analysis is current as of July 31, 2026, and the IT management analysis as of August 3, 2026.
Two research tracks
The diagram is an original explanation of the research structure. Solid arrows show the direction of analysis, not relationships from the official metamodels.
Architecture approaches
- TOGAF® Standard, 10th Edition with Technical Corrigendum 1 complements SAF with a method and architecture governance;
- DoDAF 2.02 and DM2 provide rigorous discipline for architecture data and decision-oriented views;
- ArchiMate® 3.2 provides a formal modeling language;
- Gartner's public enterprise architecture approach helps focus on outcomes and the EA operating model.
Details are provided on the individual approach pages, in the architecture crosswalk, the conclusions, and the source register.
IT management
The second track does not reduce ITSM to a single library. It distinguishes the ITSM practice domain, the evolving Rational IT Methodology (RITM), ITIL Version 5 guidance, ISO/IEC 20000-1 requirements, the lightweight FitSM standard, the COBIT governance framework, the IT4IT reference architecture, the SRE engineering practice, and the DevOps movement.
This track primarily asks how SAF architecture objects relate to the service catalog, service offerings, SLA/SLOs, configuration items, assets, and operational records. Start with the IT management overview.
Mapping method
The approaches differ in nature, so matching names are not evidence of equivalence. Each mapping is assessed by purpose, boundary, identity, lifecycle, and permitted relationships. Where no formal metamodel exists, the comparison records an analytical approximation and lowers confidence.
Mapping scale
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Direct | The concepts have essentially the same purpose and comparable boundaries. A matching name alone is insufficient. |
| Partial | The scopes overlap, but one concept is broader, narrower, or semantically different. |
| Composite | One SAF object is expressed through several concepts or a combination of elements and relationships in the other approach. |
| Absent | The available model has no sufficiently close concept. This is not necessarily a weakness of the approach. |
| Not applicable | A type-to-type mapping would be invalid, for example when a management practice publishes no formal metamodel. |
Confidence is assessed separately:
- high — an open normative or official description supports the mapping;
- medium — the mapping is inferred from several official concepts and requires a local modeling rule;
- low — public information is insufficient or the conclusion depends substantially on implementation.
Mapping type and confidence are not quality scores. “Direct, high” only means that translation between the models is more stable.
Summary frame
| Question | SAF | Architecture track | IT management |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary role | A minimal connected model of the company | Explain structure, decisions, and target change | Organize value, delivery, change, and operations |
| Primary unit | A typed object with stable identity | An architecture fact, element, relationship, or view | A service, product, practice, management object, record, or measure |
| Time horizon | A sustainable current or planned state | From current state to target state | Work flow and actual operational state |
| What connects the tracks | Service, process, capability, system, component, deployment, and resource | Explains why and how a solution is structured | Shows how it is delivered, controlled, and changed |
How to read the results
For architecture, read the individual approach pages and then the end-to-end crosswalk and conclusions. For IT management, proceed from the overview to entity boundaries and relationships, then to the crosswalk and conclusions.
Confidence is intentionally lower for Gartner. The analysis uses only public topic pages and open research abstracts. It does not reconstruct subscription content, and the absence of a published type is not interpreted as evidence that Gartner does not use the concept.
Analysis boundaries
Market adoption, implementation cost, software products, examinations, and certification are outside the study. The study does not assess any organization's conformance with a standard. Architecture sources are listed in their own register, and IT management sources in a separate dated register.