Do I need an Enterprise Architect?

In my last blog-post, I attempted to answer the question: do I need a Business Architect? by posing six other questions about the nature of the role, the services one might provide, and the value of those services. And all was going reasonably well until I stumbled into the question:

Do I need an Enterprise Architect too / instead
[of a Business Architect]?

To some people, this is the same as asking whether they need a plumber or a domestic heating engineer. But if you've water coming through the ceiling, you likely don't give two hoots what the person calls their role just as long as they fix the leak and make good the damage.

From a potential client or hiring manager's perspective, the same might be said of employing the services of a Business or Enterprise Architect. But can they solve the same problems? Do they have the same set of tools? Do they use the same methods? They're both architects after all ... which means ... errr ...?!

Architect, from the Greek Arkhitekton, from Arkhi - Chief or Master; and Tekton - a builder/carpenter/mason.

Architecture is about power and control (i.e. governance) over the realisation of 'things'. Whatever prefix is used denotes the nature of the 'thing' and the domain of the architecture. 2000 years ago, the only domain that used architectural methods to build 'things' was building architecture. The construction (i.e. realisation) of buildings was sufficiently demanding that it employed specialists to build them. And like all specialists, the specialists needed governing.

The role of 'the Architect' developed to ensure consistency between the work of groups of specialist craftsmen. The architect would prescribe a set of standards to be met and adhered to, which ensured that it was broadly impossible to determine which craftsman had worked on any particular component of the finished building. And because the result was deemed pleasing to the commissioners of those buildings, so it continued.

The advent of 'the Designer' (i.e. someone that conceives a solution, but doesn't actually build or otherwise realise it) gave the architect another role to govern. But again, the architect would prescribe a set of rules, standards and other constraints to control their work and ensure consistency, alignment and cohesion (a.k.a. 'design integrity') between groups of designers working on the same scheme. And assuming that the builders would build what the designers designed, so the architect focused their attention on the work of designers.

The role of the designer is a topic for another post. So, for the sake of getting back to answering the question I'll simplistically summarise that architecture is not design. Design is design. Architecture is the means by which a vision (of something) is developed, designed and realised.

So we must now determine the difference between the two domains in question: the enterprise and the business. But then we encounter another stumbling block - what do we mean by the words 'enterprise' and 'business'?

Again, for the sake of getting back to answering the question I'll risk frustrating those that like to argue a different viewpoint and simplistically summarise that:

an enterprise is a type/class of organisation that ' does' or participates ' in' business with people and other organisations.

This definition classifies Regulators as enterprises, which, I accept, may also frustrate certain readers. But the nature of business with regulators (and regulations) is very different from the nature of business without regulators - therefore they are just as much a participant 'in' business.

So, to my way of thinking, the domain of a Business Architect is the business that an organisation/enterprise 'does' or is 'in'; and the domain of an Enterprise Architect is the organisation/enterprise itself - what it is (can be); what it does (can do).

Many people argue that Enterprise Architecture governs the development and use of other architectures that are practised within/by the organisation/enterprise, e.g. process architecture, IT infrastructure architecture, application architecture, security architecture, business architecture, solution architecture, programme architecture, etc, etc, thus creating a hierarchy (and cabal?) of architects. And this may suit some organisations. Others argue that an architecture for architectures is ... err ... nonsensical.

Could two architects work together?

I like the idea of business and enterprise architects working together - interfacing and collaborating - with the former providing a context for the latter; and the latter challenging the ambition of the former. In this arrangement, the Business Architect represents the Board of Director's vision of 'the business' that the organisation will do; and the Enterprise Architect represents the Executive Management Team's vision of the future nature and composition of the organisation/enterprise itself.

Such arrangements would mirror the tensions in all successful, competitive organisations, e.g. being Market-led vs Capability-driven; balancing short term profitability vs long term sustainability; sacrificing time to market for new product features or greater quality of service. They also give each architect an obvious 'client' - neatly avoiding the perennial debate as to whether Enterprise Architecture is a function of the CIO or CTO or COO or CSO (Strategy, apparently!?); and whether Business Architecture is a function of the CEO, CIO or some Enterprise Architect Overlord(?!).

The Business Architect owns the business model, which frames the nature of the business that the organisation does or is 'in'. And the Enterprise Architect owns the operating model, which frames the structures and dynamics of the enterprise (i.e. the organisation) that participates 'in' the business.

And yes, both architects would need to find common ground where their design principles, rules, standards and models align. They'd just have to get over that.

As a short aside: I find it interesting that the architects of 'architecturally famous' buildings are celebrated in front of the client who originally conceived, commissioned and ultimately funded and signed-off the architect's brief/concept/models. In many online debates on the nature of the role, the notion that 'the Architect' isn't the most important person in the room is rarely considered.

So, how does any of this help answer the question? Well, if your organisation (i.e. enterprise) is Market-led, then it would almost certainly benefit from hiring a Business Architect to govern the design and realisation of the business your enterprise (i.e. organisation) aspires to 'do' or participate 'in'. And if your enterprise is Capability-driven (i.e. it creates new products and markets based on exploiting what it can do) then it would almost certainly benefit from hiring an Enterprise Architect to govern the design, realisation and development of its capabilities.

Of course, whilst there's still ambiguity in the definition of both roles, there's no right answer. But, if you employ the services of both a Business Architect and an Enterprise Architect, you ought to give serious consideration to whose vision they each represent and how these align before people start designing and building your business/enterprise.

... I don't suppose many architecturally famous buildings were the result of two different visions developed by two different architects.

----------

Ben writes for Guild Consulting - creators of simple, scalable systems for small businesses. They help remove unnecessary complexity, anxiety, frustration and spreadsheets from business operations. They help make small businesses run like clockwork.

You can read his other posts here, including: 'Why beehives aren't the size of sheds', 'Your goal isn't to make money' and 'Do I need a Business Architect?'.