The Root of the Problem is that for decades, IT teams have been mistaking project implementation details for architecture, leading to fragmented systems, misalignment, and massive inefficiencies. This has cost enterprises billions in unnecessary rework, integration efforts, and duplication.
The core issue?
Every project treats itself like it needs its own mini-architecture, instead of simply implementing a component within the single enterprise anatomy.
Let’s break this down one flawed assumption at a time.
Flawed Assumptions That Keep Enterprises Stuck
Myth 1. "Before starting any infrastructure or application Project Architecture approval is mandatory."
What’s Wrong?
What exactly is being approved???? If every project has its own architecture and requires its own architectural approval, that means we are approving fragmentation rather than ensuring alignment.
The Fix:
Architecture is ONE and ONLY ONE—the enterprise anatomy.
Approval should focus on how the project aligns with enterprise anatomy, not whether it has its own architecture.
Myth 2. "This s approved project architecture architecture serves as the definitive reference throughout the project lifecycle."
What’s Wrong?
The enterprise anatomy is the reference, not an individual project’s so-called architecture.
If every project’s implementation is treated as “architecture,” enterprises end up with multiple mini-architectures rather than one cohesive structure.
The Fix:
A project should reference how its component fits within the enterprise structure, not create its own isolated architecture.
3. "Any deviations or changes must be documented before project closure for future reference."
What’s Wrong?
If projects are creating their own architectures, then deviations aren’t just documentation issues—they are signs of misalignment with enterprise anatomy.
Tracking changes at the end of a project is too late—alignment must be continuous.
The Fix:
Changes should be made at the enterprise level, not just documented at the project level.
4. "The absence of a defined architecture demonstrates a lack of professional expertise on the part of the vendor."
What’s Wrong?
A missing architecture isn’t just a vendor problem—it’s an enterprise failure.
If vendors are defining architecture, it means the enterprise hasn’t provided a clear enterprise anatomy.
The Fix:
The enterprise should define and enforce a single structure that vendors must follow.
How These Flawed Assumptions Lead to Fragmentation
Now, let’s address some common industry responses that continue to reinforce misalignment:
5. "Enterprise architecture is aligned with the program."
What’s Wrong?
Enterprise architecture isn’t aligned to programs—it IS the foundation.
Programs are temporary, while enterprise anatomy is permanent.
If architecture keeps shifting based on programs, enterprises end up with multiple architectures that don’t fit together.
The Fix:
Programs and projects must align with enterprise anatomy, not the other way around.
6. "Project and application high-level and low-level designs provide more granular detail and are incorporated into the enterprise architecture diagram."
What’s Wrong?
This assumes projects design their own architectures and later merge them into the enterprise—which is completely backward.
Enterprise anatomy should be predefined—projects should simply implement within it.
The Fix:
Enterprise anatomy should be fully defined upfront so projects don’t need to design anything—they just execute.
Instead of merging project architectures into enterprise architecture, enterprise anatomy should already be the guiding structure.
7. "Application integration and connectivity are clearly depicted within this architecture."
What’s Wrong?
The fact that projects must define integration means they weren’t designed to fit together from the start.
Integration shouldn’t be an extra layer—it should be inherent in enterprise anatomy.
The Fix:
If enterprise anatomy is structured correctly, connectivity is already built-in, and integration doesn’t need to be separately designed for every project.
The Core Issue: Why Enterprises Keep Burning Millions
This thinking assumes:
1.Projects and programs define architecture first, then “incorporate” it into enterprise architecture later.
2.Enterprise architecture is reactive rather than the guiding structure.
3.Projects design first, then align later—instead of aligning from the start.
This is exactly how enterprises waste millions on unnecessary rework, misalignment, and duplication.
What Needs to Change?
1.Enterprise anatomy must be the only source of truth. Projects don’t create, modify, or define structure (anatomy)—they simply execute.
2.Programs and projects must align to enterprise anatomy—not the other way around.
3.Integration should be part of enterprise anatomy—it’s not something projects should have to figure out.
The Right Question to Ask
Instead of asking:"How do projects and applications integrate into enterprise architecture?"
We should be asking:"Why are projects designing architecture at all, instead of simply implementing pre-existing enterprise components?"
This is where real enterprise transformation happens.
How the ICMG Rating Team Can Help
ICMG's Rating Team has worked with some of the largest global enterprises—including Fortune 500 corporations, government organizations, and digital-native businesses—to eliminate fragmentation and ensure enterprise-wide alignment.
Our structured Enterprise Anatomy Model has helped major customs agencies streamline systems by ensuring that every project fits seamlessly into a predefined structure, reducing costly integration efforts.
Similarly, leading online travel platforms have leveraged our methodology to move away from scattered system architectures, enabling faster scalability and seamless customer experiences across geographies.
Through our Enterprise Strategy & Architecture Rating, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of how well your enterprise aligns projects with a unified anatomy, identifying gaps and providing actionable recommendations.
If your organization struggles with constant rework, misalignment, or integration nightmares, it’s time to assess whether your enterprise truly has a single, cohesive anatomy.
Let’s discuss how ICMG can help your enterprise achieve the structure and efficiency it needs.
Comments