I’m Called a Business Architect. But My Work Still Sits Inside IT.

The Title Sounds Business-Facing

I’m called a Business Architect.

That sounds like my work should define how the business operates.

It sounds like I should help sales, finance, operations, HR, customer experience, product, legal, procurement, risk, support, partners, and technology understand how their work connects.

It sounds like I should define how business strategy becomes process, how process becomes system logic, how system logic becomes components, how components become implementation, and how implementation becomes daily operations.

But in practice, where does my work sit?

Inside IT.

I attend IT transformation meetings. I support technology programs. I create capability maps for system modernization. I create value streams for CIO-led initiatives. I translate business requirements for delivery teams. I help technology teams understand business language.

This is useful work.

But useful work inside IT is not automatically business architecture.

Where the Distortion Begins

The distortion begins when business language is used inside IT and then called Business Architecture.

Because I use terms like capability, value stream, customer journey, operating model, process, and outcome, the work appears business-led.

But the funding comes from IT. The program governance sits with IT.

The audience is mostly CIO, CTO, program directors, product owners, solution architects, enterprise architects, delivery managers, vendors, and platform teams.

The business participates in workshops. But IT owns the motion. That is where the role starts shifting.

The title says Business Architect. The operating context says IT translator.

The Airline Context

Want to read more?

Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now