Enterprise Intelligence

I’m called a Business Architect. But if my outputs mainly serve the CIO, I am not necessarily defining the enterprise. But unless my work defines D1–D15 × P1–P6 anatomy. I am creating CIO-facing business views. And CIO-facing business views are not the same as enterprise anatomy.

I’m called a Business Architect. But if I mostly create capability maps for IT programs, I am not necessarily defining business anatomy. But unless the capability map defines D1–D15 × P1–P6, it remains a business view. Not architecture.

I’m called a Business Architect. But if Sales, Finance, Operations, HR, Customer Experience, Support, and other departments do not use my work, then what business am I architecting? I am not defining business anatomy. I am producing business-facing views.

I’m called a Business Architect. But if my work is scoped by IT, funded by IT, consumed by IT, and mainly used to support IT execution, then my work still sits inside IT. Unless I define D1–D15 × P1–P6 anatomy, I am not architecting the business. I am translating it for IT.

I’m called a Business Architect. But if I only create business views, I am not defining business anatomy. If my work does not make D1–D15 × P1–P6 explicit, I am not architecting the business. I am representing it. And representation is not architecture.

I create value streams. That is real work. That is useful work.That is important work. But if the value stream does not link to P1 above and P3–P4 below, I am not defining architecture. I am drawing how value appears to move.