<![CDATA[Digital transformation (DT) programmes in fragile states routinely produce fragmented systems, duplicated investment, and outcomes that diverge from strategic intent. Enterprise architecture (EA) is the discipline conventionally prescribed for these pathologies, yet its established frameworks presuppose institutional stability, deep specialist labour markets, and formal governance, none of which characterise a post-conflict economy. This paper reports a pragmatic, convergent parallel mixed-methods case study of Afghanistan that triangulates a survey of 105 public and private sector professionals with seven in-depth interviews with senior leaders. The results expose an adoption paradox: only 16.2% of surveyed organisations maintain a formal EA function, while the minority that do report markedly stronger outcomes in standardisation (M = 4.18), innovation enablement (M = 4.00), and technology risk reduction (M = 3.94). Organisations without EA rate long-term technology planning lowest of all measured items (M = 2.84). DT implementation intensity correlates strongly with perceived DT success (r = .654, p < .001), while sector membership predicts neither success (t(80) = −0.57, p = .572) nor EA adoption (χ²(1) = 0.045, p = .832), indicating a system-wide rather than sector-specific deficit. The dominant barriers are human and contextual rather than technical: a shortage of skilled professionals (M = 3.66) sustained by brain drain, and political and economic instability (M = 3.65). Committed senior leadership emerged as the single decisive enabler. The paper argues that TOGAF, Zachman, and FEAF are mismatched to this environment at the level of embedded assumption, and proposes "EA-Lite," a practitioner-derived model that is lightweight, value-driven, politically savvy, and leadership-centric, together with a revised conceptual framework for leveraging EA in fragile states.]]>
