Many people with experience and achievements eventually decided to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. I don’t know what drives that exciting and sometimes valuable desire, but I have not escaped the same trap and have also decided to share my view.

My area is enterprise architecture. Initially, discussions about enterprise architecture, its issues, role, and value seemed clear. I have seen productive and inefficient architecture practices, excellent and bad architecture frameworks, and successes and failures in real projects and organisations due to excellent ideas or problems with architecture.

The task looked relatively straightforward: describe my view of enterprise architecture, its role and value, highlight risks and pitfalls, propose best practices and practical recommendations, and write up efficient architecture governance with examples and lessons learned. That would add my small stone to the mountain of similar valuable publications in that area and satisfy my desire.

As I began preparing, analysing, and writing, I realised that two groups of factors must be considered to explain why enterprise architecture does not meet expectations.

1.       The integral group: enterprise architecture, its value, role in the firm and the enterprise architect's role.

2.       External group: current economic and technological changes and historical changes in a firm and enterprise architecture.

Most publications about enterprise architecture describe enterprise architecture and its components, which are factors from the first group. That scope limits the applicability of those publications' excellent ideas and valuable proposals.

The second group expands the scope and context of analysis beyond technology, puts enterprise architecture on the front line, and uncovers its total value for each firm’s future and prospects in the New Normal economy.

An enterprise architect's role also needs revisiting and more attention. New enterprise architecture requires new competencies. A New Normal economy requires the next level of division of labour and optimised operational processes.

My architecture and governance experience has taught me the importance of approaching tasks and deliveries from different viewpoints. That approach helped formulate detailed questions that must be answered to make the writing about new enterprise architecture a logical and applicable narrative rather than a set of elaborated statements.

• What is an enterprise, business and a company? How are they related? What roles do they play in the economy? Have those roles and relations been changing with the global changes?

• What is architecture, and how is it different from design and strategy?

• What is enterprise architecture? Why is a list of its main components, expected goals and results changing so widely from organisation to organisation and expert to expert?

• Who is an enterprise architect? What is his role and place in the company operation model? How is an architect different from an engineer or designer?

Answers to these questions shape the opinions of C-level managers and key stakeholders. They define whether formal enterprise architecture is required and what it includes, shape goals, and determine the architecture position in the company operation model.

That essentially lays the tracks on which enterprise architecture will either facilitate or hinder the company's progress. If the track is aligned with the company goals and strategy, the architecture will propel the company towards its goals. However, if the track is misaligned or the architecture does not fit, the architecture may slow down the company.

Stakeholder opinions ranging from “those guys only spend money that should be used for real jobs” to “they are essential, deliver value, and we must have it” are formed from different viewpoints. Even the CTO and CIO, close top managers in the technology domain, look from separate positions with other priorities and expectations from architects and enterprise architecture. That broad spectrum of views is valuable for defining complete and integral architecture.

This is like views on a pencil. From the first viewpoint, it is round and blunt; from the second, it is round and sharp; from the third, it is long, rectangular, sharp at one end and square at another. We can add other views on materials, usability, ecology, commercial, etc. Some views might not include all parameters or components, but indirectly, all views are interdependent. For a good pencil, those views must be balanced.

Historically, enterprise architecture was associated with IT.

The terminology was introduced in the 1980s. The diversification strategy, mergers and acquisitions, and growing globalisation created big corporations with complex, often unoptimised, and lightly integrated IT systems. Those corporations and systems generated the growing volume of duplicated and misaligned information required for successful management. They were challenging to manage. Management responded to that challenge and extended operation models with two new management roles, CIO and CTO, a new artefact enterprise architecture accompanied by an enterprise architect role.

The primary purpose of enterprise architecture was to optimise the IT system and align it with business goals and strategy. That purpose and approach to enterprise architecture still prevail in the visions of many organisations.

Since then, business strategy, operation models, IT technologies, IT system development and management methods, IT risks, and regulations have changed. Enterprise architecture frameworks have been extended and elaborated, and new tools have been developed. However, the vision is still the same, acting as a Procrustean bed that limits enterprise architecture value and constrains companies' progress. It is time to rethink enterprise architecture's vision, goal, scope, and role.

Enterprise architecture is one of the critical deliveries of enterprise architecture practice.

Architecture practice and enterprise architecture always exist in a company but in different forms. A large transnational corporation, a local garage, a global bank, and a local shop need different implementations of the practice and architecture.

Enterprise architecture is usually trivial in a small company. It is not formalised and exists only in the head of the owner or top manager, who covers the architecture practice role. Still, a company's operational size might differ significantly from its visible size. Globalisation, outsourcing, long manufacturing and value chains might require complex architecture and design. Underestimation of that area might cause problems even for a small company.

Architecture practice is a business capability similar to and not less complex than accounting, risk management, marketing, or any other business capability.

Key factors that differentiate attention to these capabilities are maturity and regulations. That gap is smaller in the banking sector, where the IT system is the core of the business, and regulations cover the technology domain in many areas.

However, enterprise architecture topics are sometimes considered too abstract or theoretical, even in the banking industry. “Traditional” capabilities exist and have “punished” ignorance for much longer. Management better understands their roles and implementation and accepts theory, models and formulas in risk management or accounting.  

I believe the architecture capability is on the same track. More demanding business and economic conditions, a growing volume of data, new technologies, and growing punishment for ignorance will demand maturity in architecture similar to marketing, risk management, and accounting.

Architecture practice must deliver business value with meaningful, transparent, measurable KPIs integrated into the company's KPI system, like any other business unit or function.

Defining architecture business value, correct form, and KPIs is an essential and not trivial task that is often overlooked.    

One may say companies and management lived without those complications, definitions and narratives for many decades and even centuries. Why would we need all that now?

The statement is valid, and the question is also excellent.

The simple answer is that it depends on each company's situation.

If your company is in good condition, makes a profit, the market and demand are stable, and projections for the next 10-15 years are excellent, then you are lucky and don’t need to change anything. I would be very keen and the first in the queue to read, hear and learn how you achieve that if you share your experience.

If the situation is not that excellent, then the answer is that many things have changed, and even more profound and fundamental changes are happening now. The changes occur in many areas, including the economy, politics, technology, ecology, demography, etc.

Company management must have the proper instruments to manage risks and capitalize on opportunities. Enterprise architecture is one such instrument.

That broad perspective for enterprise architecture is essential for a more enlightened and open-minded approach. The context and big picture bring enterprise architecture to the right level, where it will work, and where an enterprise architect role will deliver real value.

 This narrative is based on a company model developed according to Russian economist Oleg Grigoriev's overarching economic theory, Neoconomica. In that theory, processes and changes at the mega level—the global economy—the macro level—a national economy—and the micro level—a company—are integrated into one system, with a firm as the critical economic actor.

The narrative is created from an enterprise architect's viewpoint, focusing on the company's target state design, architecture, and the integration of all company components. These areas are the main contributions and values of an enterprise architect and enterprise architecture.