For decades, IT architecture has been narrowly defined by evolving software programming patterns—object-oriented design, client-server, 2-tier to 3-tier, service-oriented, and microservices. While these patterns serve a purpose, they are not architecture—they are the materials of implementation. Yet, these patterns have been misleadingly served in the name of architecture.
Let’s draw an analogy: In construction, the evolution of materials—ranging from traditional clay bricks to eco-friendly bricks and from ordinary Portland cement to innovative geopolymer cement—plays a critical role in building projects. Similarly, steel brands like ArcelorMittal, Tata Steel, or LafargeHolcim have revolutionized construction materials.
But the architecture of a building is defined by its blueprint, not the specific materials or brands used. Imagine if we referred to civil architects as "Lafarge Cement Architects" or "ArcelorMittal Steel Architects." Such brand-specific labels make no sense, as the architect’s role is to focus on structure, vision, and design—not the materials they use.
The same applies to IT frameworks. Example: Imagine a car manufacturer focusing only on the engine design while ignoring the chassis, safety systems, and user interface. That’s what IT frameworks do—they give you one piece of the puzzle but never the full picture. They focus on fragments, like microservices or Agile, while neglecting the larger blueprint that integrates and aligns all the pieces.
Adding to the problem, IT frameworks themselves are broken, inconsistent, and incomplete. Many operate like puzzle pieces from different sets—useful individually but impossible to assemble into a cohesive whole. They often push narrow agendas tied to specific tools or certifications, misleading organizations into thinking a partial view is the entire picture.