Case USA36: Why a Big 4 Consulting Arm Replaced Enterprise Architecture with Framework Licensing

Sunil Dutt Jha
Aug 7
1 min read

Updated: Oct 29

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series exposing how US enterprises — and their advisors — have mislabeled deliverable packaging as “Enterprise Architecture.” In the consulting sector, a recurring pattern is substituting framework licensing for actual architecture work. Methodology binders, templates, and toolkits were delivered under the EA banner — yet no modeled enterprise structure linked business goals, processes, systems, and operations.

P1–P6 Insight Preview: Frameworks standardized documentation components (P4) and accelerated deliverable production (P5), but lacked strategy-to-execution coherence (P1) and defined process architecture (P2).

System behavior (P3) was left to client interpretation; business + tech operations (P6) saw no measurable improvement.

Role Disconnects:

CEO (Client): “We got a full architecture package” — but nothing works together in practice.
CIO (Client): “The framework looks impressive” — yet it doesn’t match our operational reality.
Sales Head (Consulting): “We’ve delivered the methodology” — but clients can’t execute without more billable hours.
Chief EA (Client): “We have branded templates, not an enterprise model”
Head of Consulting Engagement: “The toolkit checked the deliverables box, but never connected to how the client’s enterprise actually runs”