Community Comment: Part 40 - Being bold & clear helps avoid the traps of enterprise architecture
- Enterprise architecture traps and how to avoid them
- Be bold and direct when it comes to describing traps and cures
- Ivory tower architectures are traps, but who actually creates architectures?
- If you want to make progress, avoid usage of unclear or circular definitions
The comments I provided in reaction to a community discussion thread.
Chief Architect at Dutch Consulting Firm:
๐ต ๐๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ โ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฆ
Following up the โ12 ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ ๐ค๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฅ๐ง๐๐จ๐ ๐ผ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ง๐โ, I wanted to flip the perspective:
๐ What are the patterns that consistently lead EA teams into trouble?
These arenโt abstract risks.
They show up in the wild, on stalled initiatives, in orgs with no trust in EA, or in tooling graveyards. And often, theyโre subtle:
โข ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ง๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ โ beautiful diagrams, but no influence on real delivery
โข ๐ข๐๐ฒ๐ฟ-๐๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ โ โ๐ง๐ถ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ-๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐งโ designs that stall progress before value hits
โข ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐น๐๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ โ static diagrams that no one updates or uses
โข ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ โ control-heavy culture that creates blockers, not support
โข ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด โ no hard proof EA creates impact or justifies its existence
โข ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ โ everyone logs the debt, no one pays it down
โข ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ ๐๐ง ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ โ a defensive stance toward unsanctioned innovation
โข ๐ง๐ผ๐ผ๐น ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ โ tools and frameworks bought before needs are clear
โข ๐ง๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฃ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ โarchitects stuck, unchallenged, and slowly falling behind
These traps are habits, blind spots, and culture patterns that quietly erode EAโs credibility and impact. The graphic pairs each with a โcureโ weโve seen work in the field.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ?
Add your โTrap #10โ in the comments. Letโs expand this into a crowdsourced anti-pattern catalog for architects.
๐งญ Avoid the traps. Spread the cures.
Gfesser:
My suggestion is to be a little more bold with #1, changing this to "Ivory tower architects" from "Ivory tower architectures". Also, #1 and #2 both mention "architecture" without defining it, with #2 also mentioning "designs". While I understand that these descriptions are intended to be very high level summaries, what these two terms mean still tends to result in much debate: perhaps a couple footnotes would help, or even better, provide descriptions of these two traps that don't involve circular definitions.
Chief Architect at Dutch Consulting Firm:
Good callout Erik.and you're right, precision matters, especially up front.
Tempting suggestion to shift #1 to โIvory Tower Architectsโ โ it puts accountability where it belongs. And yes, the terms โarchitectureโ and โdesignโ carry a lot of baggage.
Simplifying the language might be a better path here. Appreciate the thoughtful push for clarity!